Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o' Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (by Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow at Seven o'Clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

T.A. Annual Training (Workers' Pay)

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, in a number of industries, the workmen's holiday with pay entitlement is computed on the number of weeks' full-time employment, and that in some industries the 15 days of army emergency call-up is excluded from this computation; and what action he proposes to take.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): Employers generally are most helpful over arrangements for men doing their annual training. I do know, however, that some employers are not giving credits under their holidays with pay schemes for the period of annual training, and I would take this opportunity of expressing the hope that they will find their way to do so.

Mr. Hale: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman or his colleague, the Minister of Labour, was having consultations with employers in this matter. Can he say whether they have reached a result? It is certainly the position that people going for annual training are now being victimised. Surely something can be done about it?

Mr. Head: Territorial Army morale depends upon the good will both of the men who serve and their employers. Without that good will it would never

work. I think that much the best thing at this stage is for me to appeal to those employers who are not counting annual training in this respect to reconsider their attitude in this matter.

Mr. Fernyhough: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to inquire into the matter, does not he think that in view of the small amount involved it would pay the Army to reimburse these people and thus remove this cause of resentment?

Mr. Head: I think that the best thing to do is to wait and see.

Fainting on Parade

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for War in what units of the British Army it is an offence to faint on parade; under what Section of the Army Act men are so charged; how many men have been so charged in the last five years; and what penalties are prescribed for those found guilty.

Mr. Head: It is not an offence under the Army Act to faint on parade. The other parts of the Question do not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Swingler: Can the Minister say why, in the Brigade of Guards, fainting on parade is automatically attributed to idleness and is subject to punishment? Can he also say whether it is not a fact that the Commanding Officer of the Coldstream Guards recently issued summary punishment to an officer in this respect, and whether this action was not illegal under Section 46 of the Army Act?

Mr. Head: No, Sir. It is not automatic that a man receives punishment if he faints on parade. Each case is gone into. There are various ways of preparing oneself for a parade, and a bad way is to have an "all night sitting" the night before.

Mr. Godber: In considering the question of fainting on parade, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the very large Government majority yesterday, which showed clearly that hon. Members opposite were fainting in their Parliamentary duties?

Mr. Shinwell: If a man who has had an "all night sitting" is susceptible to fainting, cannot he arrange to pair with somebody?

Mr. Swingler: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my supplementary question? Is it not a fact that the Commanding Officer of the Guards recently issued a summary punishment to a junior officer? Is not this specifically forbidden under Sections 46 and 47 of the Army Act? Will the Minister inquire into the situation and take disciplinary action against the Commanding Officer concerned?

Mr. Head: No, Sir, it is not forbidden. It is my experience that the best way to run an army is to trust the commanding officer to run his unit, and take action if he does not do so properly.

Mr. Swingler: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Regular Recruitment

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for War his estimate of the additional recruitment to the Regular Army which has resulted to the latest date from the improvements in pay introduced on 1st April; and if he is satisfied with this response.

Mr. Head: The pay improvements were designed mainly to persuade the right type of man already in the Army to prolong his service. It is too early properly to assess their effect, but the numbers who have prolonged their service since 1st April seem to show an encouraging improvement which, I hope, will be maintained.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Secretary of State aware that confidence in the administration of the Army, which is one thing that will attract more recruits, is not enhanced by his refusing to carry out the rules and regulations laid down by Parliament? Will he say whether he thinks now, on the basis of his experience, that the improvements in pay will bring him a sufficient number of recruits to enable him to reduce National Service?

Mr. Head: I said in answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question that the main object of the recent pay changes was to induce men to prolong their service and to remain in the Army, and, so far as one can see in the three months since they have been receiving the new pay, the results are encouraging.

Mr. Wigg: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the difficulty in the carrying out of his recruiting policy is due as much as to anything else to the fact that the penalties under the Army Act apply only to private soldiers and not to officers in the Brigade of Guards?

Mr. Head: I would point out to the hon. Member that he is quite wrong in supposing that the particular incident to which he referred was in breach of the Army Act.

National Service Training (Boredom)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the published report of the conference between representatives of his Department, the Air Ministry and the British Association for Commercial and Industrial Education on the subject of National Service; and what steps he will take to abolish boredom and time-wasting in the Army.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War what courses have been arranged for unit officers on the best methods of counteracting boredom and stimulating the interest of National Service men.

Mr. Head: I have read this report with great interest. It is part of the job of every officer to keep his men interested and contented, and I think that all officers well know this. This responsibility is stressed throughout an officer's training both at Sandhurst or his officer cadet school, and later in his unit.

Mr. Swingler: As the Secretary of State has wasted so much time in the House denying that there was time wasting in the Army will he now recognise, from this report, that all these authorities agree that there is time wasting in the Army? Will he, therefore, pay more attention to a question in which he himself says he is greatly interested and substitute civilians for soldiers in clerical and such-like duties? That has not been fully done, according to the reports he has been given.

Mr. Head: I dealt with that matter last week at Question time. I have never denied that there are inevitably certain duties in the Army that are not exciting for National Service men We should


like to get rid of them, but without an enormous increase in expenditure and a much larger number of civilians we cannot do so.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the trouble does not arise from routine duties but from the fact that large numbers of National Service men are not fully and usefully occupied during their training? Will he have a look at the critical remarks by a High Court judge last week at Shrewsbury Assizes, who drew attention to the demoralising effects of boredom and to the need for the Secretary of State and other authorities concerned to accept some responsibility in this matter?

Mr. Head: The hon. and gallant Member may be an expert about boredom. If he will send me particulars I shall be interested to look into the matter, but I would assure him that the object of the vast majority of officers is to see that their men are not bored.

Sir H. Williams: Does my right hon. Friend know that no boredom in the Army is greater than that which I feel when I listen to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) and the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton)?

Helicopters

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for War on what date his discussions with the Secretary of State for Air on the Army's need for helicopters commenced; how many meetings have taken place since 1st May, 1954; when the next one will be held; and whether he will make a statement on the progress made.

Mr. Head: I have nothing at present to add to my reply to the hon. Member's Question last Tuesday.

Mr. Dodds: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman give information when he is asked instead of trying to blackleg comedians? I asked him last week a Question about what progress had been made, and he answered in one word:
Progress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 22nd June, 1954; Vol. 529, c. 209.]
I would ask him, if he cannot give any more information than that, whether he thinks it has not been proved that the Army needs helicopters as much as lorries?

Mr. Head: It is impossible for me to make a statement on a subject that is under discussion. The whole object of the discussion is to reach agreement and finality. Until that is reached any statement is futile.

Requisitioned Properties

Mr. Gower: asked the Secretary of State for War how many properties are still held under requisition by his Department; if he will order a new investigation into the circumstances of each case; and if he will direct that prior consideration be given to the original owner, or owners, whenever a sale is contemplated.

Mr. Head: Six hundred and eighty-three properties are held under requisition under Defence Regulation 51. When no longer required, they are returned to the owners. It is the aim to do this as soon as possible.

Mr. Gower: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these figures are fantastically large? Does he also agree that it seems to be the natural tendency of bureaucracy to keep what it has and that the recent Crichel Down case suggests that an investigation on the lines indicated would be beneficial and, in any case, could do no harm?

Lieut. - Colonel Lipton: Wrong Minister.

Mr. Head: Considering the amount of requisitioning during the war I do not think that these figures are large. They have fallen from over 1,000 in August last year to 683, and our object is to get rid of these requisitions altogether as soon as possible.

Mr. T. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman said that land is handed back to the original owners. Is that done regardless of agricultural considerations?

Mr. Head: I am answering only for my Department. So far as we are concerned, requisitioned land is always handed back to its owners.

Mr. Shinwell: As the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has suggested that the fault lies with what he describes as bureaucracy will the right hon. Gentleman repudiate any allegation of any sort or kind against his staff? He must accept responsibility.

Mr. Head: I am answering only for my Department, and I repeat that it is my object, and I am confident it is my staff's object, to get rid of these requisitioned properties as quickly as we can.

Incident, Vienna

Mr. Collick: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement as to the facts of the occurrence in Vienna on the night of 1st June when two British soldiers were involved in shootings which caused death and injury to Viennese civilians and injury to a British military policeman.

Mr. Head: Her Majesty's Ambassador, as soon as he heard of this most distressing incident, expressed his deep regret to the Austrian Chancellor and his sympathy with the victims and their families. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State wrote in similar terms to the Austrian Ambassador.
The two soldiers concerned have been charged, and a summary of evidence is to be taken, so that I cannot say more at present.

Mr. Collick: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the grave harm done to the good name of this country by such shocking events as this in a friendly country like Austria, and will he give the House an assurance that generous compensation will be made to the innocent, injured people?

Mr. Head: I regret this incident as much as anybody else. The last part of the supplementary question is far more a matter for the Foreign Secretary than for me, but I know that the matter is now being taken up.

Mr. Collick: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is able to say whether it is the Government's intention to make adequate compensation for a serious offence of this kind.

Mr. Head: I think I can go as far as this, that it is the Government's intention that we should behave towards the Austrian Government in a way commensurate with the matter.

Mr. Paget: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, apart from very isolated instances, the conduct of our troops has been exceptionally good, and that they have, in fact, been good ambassadors?

Mr. Head: I am very proud to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I think that throughout the world the conduct of British troops, often in very trying conditions, has been exceptionally good.

R.A.O.C. Tradesmen (Pay Increases)

Mr. Alport: asked the Secretary of State for War whether a decision has yet been made with regard to the application for the payment of ability pay to skilled tradesmen in Royal Army Ordnance Corps establishments on a level equal to that paid to skilled men in equivalent trades in Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers establishments.

Mr, Head: The necessary review has just been completed and some increases will shortly be authorised.

Mr. Alport: Do these apply to skilled tradesmen in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps?

Mr. Head: Yes, Sir.

Holiday Towns (Key Workers' T.A. Training)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps his Department takes to cause least inconvenience to the holiday trade in towns, such as Brighton, which live by that trade, by precluding key workmen there from being attached to units having their annual training at the peak of the holiday season.

Mr. Head: We try to avoid inconvenience to the men themselves and their employers when men are called up for training as individuals, or in fixing the dates of unit camps. Territorial Army training necessarily takes place throughout the summer months, and some inconvenience to the holiday trade is, I am afraid, unavoidable.

Mr. Teeling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the last thing I want to do is to press him on this as a general question, but that the hotel and restaurant business in Brighton is a vital key industry there, and that the hoteliers ask that their key people should not be called up during the peak holiday period? As to the particular case of which he is aware, would my right hon. Friend be


willing to see the owner of the hotel in question to discuss with me and with him the very real problem?

Mr. Head: My trouble in dealing with a particular point sympathetically is to avoid general repercussions. I am always willing to see anybody who wants to see me, and I will do that, but I cannot extend to my hon. Friend any hope in this matter.

Mr. Wigg: Why not transfer these men to the Army Emergency Reserve?

Mr. Head: If I were to transfer this man to the Army Emergency Reserve, I should be going against the whole principle of the Territorial Army, which is that if a man is in a certain area he belongs to a Territorial Army unit, whereas if he lives a long way from the Territorial Army centres, he is in the Army Emergency Reserve. One thing which is essential for a successful camp is some good cooks.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in addition to their Majesties the King and Queen of Sweden, whom we are glad to see here, more overseas visitors are expected this year than ever before? Is it not the job of the Secretary of State for War to consult the Board of Trade and make satisfactory arrangements to look after the tourist traffic?

Mr. Head: It is also my job to see that the Army is in a state to resist unwelcome visitors to these shores.

Mr. Teeling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in this regiment, which also had its camp at the same time last year, there are two more cooks this year and fewer people, I gather, who will be in the camp, so that things are better this year rather than worse?

Mr. Head: The total number of cooks available to this camp is exactly one-third of the unit's establishment for cooks.

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps his Department take, when the British Travel and Holidays Association back a recommendation for the deferment of calling-up for Territorial annual training, to find somebody else to take the place of the man so called up.

Mr. Head: Representations by this association and similar bodies are always taken fully into account when decisions of this kind are taken.

Mr. Teeling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Jewish Ex-Service Men's Association in Brighton has put this case to him only today, in addition to the British Travel and Holidays Association? Can anything be done to find someone else to take this man's place, because kosher cooks are not easy to find in small Jewish hotels?

Mr. Head: I was not aware of that representation until I met my hon. Friend just before Question time, but when I receive the Association's representation I will, of course, look into it.

Mr. Strachey: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as long as we have to have a Reserve Army, its training must come before business considerations?

Mr. Head: indicated assent.

Jewish Territorials (Kosher Cook)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for War how many members of the Jewish faith will be attending the annual camp of the 411th (Sussex) Coast Regiment, Royal Artillery, Territorial Army, over the August Bank holiday week; and why an expert kosher cook is required.

Mr. Head: Three. Mr. Webber is not needed as an expert kosher cook.

Mr. Teeling: If he is not required as an expert kosher cook, and he is required in his hotel where, for religious purposes, they must have kosher cooks—because the hotel is expected to provide this sort of catering—and where there is no one else to do the job, cannot my right hon. Friend try to find somebody else?

Mr. Head: I should be only too glad to help in this case, but the fact remains that a unit must go to camp as a unit. Once we start transferring and excusing people, then the unit, instead of going as a unit, goes as half a unit, with a lot of people having changed their dates, and the whole point of the camp fails.

Mr. Janner: Would the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that a cook of this nature is very


difficult to replace, particularly at that time of the year, and that the cook is required for the purpose of providing the type of food which is eaten on religious grounds? Will he see whether he can do something about this? Will he try to transfer the date or to make other arrangements in order to help with this problem because the hotel cannot get anyone for the job, especially for a fortnight or some such period as that?

Mr. Head: I am aware of the difficulties of the hotel management and I sympathise with them in this problem, but it is something which comes to employers through National Service and it often comes to individuals as well. I have my duty and it is that, apart from quite exceptional cases, the arrangements have to run.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

East-West Trade

Mr. Dodds: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement following the further consideration given to relaxations of restrictions on East-West trade.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): My right hon. Friend regrets that he is not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Dodds: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that for a long time there has been widespread dissatisfaction and concern over this matter? Although he says he cannot yet make a statement, would it not be helpful if a statement were made as to how much longer it will be before these relaxations are introduced?

Mr. Amory: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are just as anxious as he is that these discussions shall be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. A statement will be made at the earliest moment.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the Minister aware that his answer has been the same for many weeks? Can he give an assurance that a statement will be made before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Amory: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said at the end of March that he expected

that these discussions might last two or three months. The three months are not yet quite up. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is not unprecedented for international discussions to last a little longer than expected.

Mr. Bottomley: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give an assurance that progress is not being held up by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Amory: Yes, I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will issue an up-to-date list of the goods and articles for the export of which to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and to the Republic of China, respectively, licences may and may not be granted by his Department.

Mr. Amory: As regards the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) on 3rd June.
The China embargo list was published in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 19th June, 1951. There have been minor changes and traders should continue to consult the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Supply, as may be appropriate, about particular goods. A list which gives a general indication of the kinds of goods for which normally an export licence for China would be granted was published in the Board of Trade Journal of 12th June last.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister say whether it is the policy of his Department to expand these lists or not? Does he realise that the promotion of international trade with these countries may have an important, beneficial and far-reaching effect on world peace?

Mr. Amory: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman knows the Government's policy on this matter. So far as the embargo list in relation to the Soviet bloc goes, we are engaged in discussions with a view to reducing the size of the list. There are no discussions proceeding and no proposals to change the present list in relation to China.

Fungicide Imports

Mr. P. Wells: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will allow the import of S.R.406 into this country for the control of fungus diseases.

Mr. Amory: I understand that S.R.406 is available only from the United States of America and that it has not yet been proved in large-scale trials to be an effective fungicide under United Kingdom conditions. In order however, to enable its efficiency to be tested, import licences for limited quantities have been issued during the last 18 months and the Board of Trade are prepared to consider further applications for licences to import the material for experimental purposes.

Arms (Exports to South America)

Mr. Hale: asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of arms exported in the last 12 months, to the most recent convenient date, to each country in South America.

Mr. Amory: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hale: Would the right hon. Gentleman give the figures for Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala, in which we are interested?

Mr. Amory: I will give the hon. Gentleman the figures. There are 20 countries, but he mentioned three. These are the figures, in £ sterling for 1953: Guatemala, £386; Nicaragua, nothing; and Honduras, nothing. [Laughter.]

Mr. Burden: Would my right hon. Friend say whether any British weapons were used recently in the World Football Cup battle?

Mr. Hale: Would the Minister reply to his hon. Friends who are laughing about this Question and tell us why there has been a suggestion that British ships should be searched on their way to these countries, who made that suggestion, on what basis, and whether, in those circumstances, such a request should have been made?

Mr. Amory: I am quite incapable of answering that question.

Following are the figures:


UNITED KINGDOM EXPORTS OF ARMS, AMMUNITION AND MILITARY STORES AND APPLIANCES (INCLUDING SPORTING GUNS AND SOME NON-MILITARY EQUIPMENT AND EXPLOSIVES) IN 1953.



£


Argentine Republic
20,668


Bolivia
52,303


Brazil
42,099


Chile
165,439


Colombia
70,570


Costa Rica
201


Cuba
1,308


Dominican Republic
—


Ecuador
18,149


El Salvador
5,456


Guatemala
386


Hayti
—


Honduras
—


Mexico
1,961


Nicaragua
—


Panama (including Canal Zone)
2,227


Paraguay
—


Peru
327,423


Uruguay
23,757


Venezuela
196,463

Subsidised Horticultural Imports

Mr. P. Wells: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will publish a list of subsidised horticultural produce entering this country.

Mr. Amory: It is usually far from easy to establish whether particular goods are directly or indirectly subsidised. The Board of Trade has no full list of subsidised horticultural produce entering this market and would, I am afraid, find it extremely difficult to compile one.

Mr. Wells: Would the Minister get in touch with the National Farmers' Union and ascertain exactly what is happening about subsidised imports of horticultural produce, which are working unfairly towards producers here?

Mr. Amory: I should be glad to receive any representations which the National Farmers' Union care to make on this subject.

Mr. Bullard: Will my right hon. Friend say whether his Department had any hand in the private arrangement whereby 20,000 tons of potatoes are to come from the Argentine—most extraordinary of all places—in exchange for Bedford lorries? Why should we wish to import potatoes from the Argentine under present circumstances?

Mr. Amory: I assure my hon. Friend that we have not been the buyers of these


potatoes. As a matter of fact, I know nothing of that contract other than what I have read in the Press.

Mr. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is undoubtedly a considerable element of subsidy in many of the horticultural products coming into this country? As the purpose of the recent increases in horticultural tariffs was to protect the home grower does he not agree that this element of subsidy is largely vitiating the effect of those increased tariffs?

Mr. T. Williams: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to that question, is he aware that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is one of the most ardent supporters of setting the people free?

Mr. Amory: I shall not answer the right hon. Gentleman's question, but I shall answer the question of my hon Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). We are aware that there are elements of export subsidy in a number of horticultural imports into this country, and, in principle, we are opposed to export subsidies.

Light Industry, Midlothian

Mr. Pryde: asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the last Report of the Census of Population in the county of Midlothian and if his Department will vow steer light industry to the county

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I have seen this Report. The Government will certainly bear in mind the position in the developing coalfield area of Midlothian, but the hon. Member will appreciate that there are other areas, particularly Development Areas, where the immediate needs are greater.

Mr. Pryde: Is the Minister aware that since that Report was published in 1951, the Midlothian County Council and the small burghs have built a large number of houses in order to rehouse redundant miners and their families from Lanarkshire, and that no attempt has been made to provide alternative industry for the women? Is he also aware that this policy has discouraged the transfer of miners from Lanarkshire and militates

against the production of coal in Scotland?

Mr. Strauss: I think that the hon. Member will agree that the unemployment rate in this area is less than that in Scotland as a whole. I assure him that we shall consider sympathetically applications for industrial development certificates in suitable cases.

Middle East Markets (Personal Visits)

Mr. Erroll: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to encourage the implementation of paragraph 86 of the Report of the United Kingdom Trade Mission to Iraq, Kuwait, the Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia, which states that directors and senior officers of companies should pay extended visits to Middle Eastern countries in order to secure the confidence of the people who matter.

Mr. Amory: In his foreword to the Mission's Report, my right hon. Friend invited special attention to the recommendation that in the markets of the Middle East there is no substitute for knowledge acquired by personal visits. He feels confident that firms interested in these markets will bear in mind the importance of visits by their directors or other senior executives.

Mr. Erroll: Will the Minister pass on these remarks to the Board of Inland Revenue?

Mr. Amory: There is the closest cooperation between my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in all good causes.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is there the slightest evidence that any of these visits to the Middle East, in order to bump up exports, are in any way stopped by the Inland Revenue officials?

Mr. Amory: I have no evidence of that.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Will the Minister say whom he regards, in the terms of the Question, as the "people who matter?"

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: The people who natter?

Imported Machinery (Duty)

Mr. Holt: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the lifting of certain restrictions on the importation of dollar machinery, he will use his powers, where applications to import machinery are granted, to permit such machinery to be imported duty free.

Mr. Amory: My right hon. Friend has under consideration the question of duty-free licensing of imports of machinery, including machinery from dollar sources, in the light of the report of the committee which was set up to consider this subject. He hopes to be able to publish the report and make a statement before the House rises for the Summer Recess.

Mr. Holt: Does the Minister not think that since the announcement he made on 21st June that the whole purpose of the restriction on the importation of dollar machinery was to reduce cost, it is an anomaly that even now he should grant applications to import this dollar machinery and not waive the duty?

Mr. Amory: We are at cross-purposes. The import policy is quite distinct from the policy of duty-free licensing, and as regards the latter we must clearly await the report and my right hon. Friend's announcement on that report.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Will the Minister bear in mind the beneficial effect which the removal of duty would have on the export trade?

Mr. Amory: All these matters will be taken very much into consideration before my right hon. Friend makes his announcement.

New Factories, Wales

Mr. Gower: asked the President of the Board of Trade the latest figures for approvals of new factories and extensions in Wales and Monmouthshire; how these figures compare with Scotland and England, respectively; and whether, on a percentage basis, this shows an improvement or decline in the relative position of Wales as compared with recent years.

Mr. H. Strauss: Since the answer contains a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Gower: Can my hon. and learned Friend say whether Wales is holding its position in this matter?

Mr. Strauss: I hope that my hon. Friend will study the figures. He will understand that for this year we have the figures for the first quarter only, which is a short period on which to base an annual estimate.

Following are the figures:

The figures, which are based on estimates of value made by applicants for industrial development certificates, are as follow:



1952
1953
1st Quarter, 1954



£m.
£m.
£m.


Wales and Monmouthshire
1·5
20·8*
1·5


Scotland
6·6
6·0
1·58


England (excl. Mon.)
43·3
64·2
26·6


Great Britain
51·4
91·1
29·68


Wales as per cent, of Great Britain (value basis) 
per cent. 2·9
per cent. 22·8
per cent. 5·0


* This figure includes two very large steel projects.

Canadian Apples

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he had with apple growers during his recent visit to Canada; and whether the supply of Canadian apples to British domestic consumers will be resumed in the near future as the result of his talks.

Mr. Amory: While my right hon. Friend was in Canada he received deputations from first, the Nova Scotia and the Ontario apple growers and, later, the British Columbia growers, and he was glad to have this opportunity of hearing at first hand of conditions in those industries and of the importance of the United Kingdom market to them. He told them that he was sorry that he could give no undertaking when we should be able to afford to import apples from North America.

Mr. Osborne: Will my right hon. Friend see that the President bears in mind the interests of the home growers of apples, and remind our Canadian friends that we cannot buy more from them unless they buy a good deal more from us, as the trade balance is very much against us?

Mr. Amory: I should like to remind my hon. Friend that we are anxious to


remove the restrictions on the dollar imports of manufactured goods, foodstuffs and the few remaining raw materials at the earliest possible moment.

Imported Artificial Silk Staple Fibre (Drawback)

Mr. Wade: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) on what date drawback ceased to apply to imported artificial silk fibres used in the manufacture in this country of articles for export;
(2) whether, in view of the need for encouraging export trade, he will take steps to reintroduce a drawback on imported artificial silk fibres, which are subject to import duties and are used in the manufacture of articles for export.

Mr. Amory: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to artificial silk staple fibre. The drawback scheme for artificial silk staple fibre used in the manufacture of articles for export came to an end on the 31st December, 1951, in respect of all subsequent imports.
On the question of reintroduction of the drawback, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 23rd February to the Question asked by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall).

Mr. Wade: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the reasons for discontinuing this drawback, which, when available, helped to minimise the harmful effect of this duty upon manufacturers making goods for export? Does he appreciate that while this drawback is not available, the indirect consequence of this duty is to cause considerable loss of valuable export trade?

Mr. Amory: I have had no evidence that it does amount to any significant handicap, but if the hon. Gentleman has any information which he cares to send to me to the effect that it does, I shall, of course, be glad to receive it.

Mr. Holt: Has the right hon. Gentleman not received representations from the Rayon Merchants' Association, in Manchester, quite recently on this subject?

Mr. Amory: The representations which we have had, and which have not been many, have not led us to believe that the effect is at all significant as a handicap to our export trade.

Hire Purchase and Credit Sale Order

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the President of the Board of Trade on what grounds it is necessary to maintain in force the Hire Purchase and Credit Sale Agreements (Control) Order, Statutory Instrument, 1952, No. 121, which affects a wide range of household goods; and if he will now take steps to rescind the Order.

Mr. H. Strauss: My right hon. Friend is examining the scope of this Order, but I cannot yet make a statement.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Will the Minister bear in mind that this Order has now served its original purpose, which was to conserve certain materials, that it continues to discriminate unfairly against the poorer sections of the community, and that there is a considerable demand that it should now be rescinded?

Mr. Strauss: The changes which have taken place will certainly be borne in mind.

Exports to Canada

Mr. de Freitas: asked the President of the Board of Trade what opportunities there are for expanding our exports to Canada of heavy engineering products.

Mr. Amory: The capital development schemes projected or already being undertaken in Canada provide many and varied opportunities for our heavy engineering products and I am confident that British industry will do all it can to win an increasing share of this valuable trade.

Mr. de Freitas: Is the Minister aware that, although our exports of motor cars compared with last year have increased to sterling countries and to many European countries, such as Sweden, they have drastically declined in respect of Canada? Can he say what the President of the Board of Trade did about that when he was in Canada?

Mr. Amory: My right hon. Friend had many interesting and valuable discussions while he was there, and, in all the circumstances, I think that our exports to dollar markets during the past 12 months have held up not too badly; but as regards the future, I believe that there are very great opportunities, and that there


is much evidence that many of our exporters are beginning to get well-established in that very important market.

Commander Donaldson: Is the Minister aware of the appreciation of the Canadian people from coast to coast resulting from the recent visit of the President of the Board of Trade, and can he tell the House if the President will make a comprehensive statement on the result of his travels in the near future?

Mr. Amory: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that my right hon. Friend found his visit of the very greatest value and interest.

Mr. Bottomley: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of that supplementary question? Is it the intention of the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement to the House?

Mr. Amory: I am not sure. I should rather doubt whether my right hon. Friend would make a comprehensive statement to the House.

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Amory: I shall be very glad to consult my right hon. Friend on the point. I know that he will be very anxious to impart to the House all specific information on points of interest to hon. Members.

Mr. de Freitas: asked the President of the Board of Trade what opportunities there are for expanding our exports to Canada of pedigree livestock.

Mr. Amory: There is a potential market in Canada for pedigree livestock from this country, especially for bulls, cows and heifers; but prices there are very competitive, and the high freight costs and the expense and delay necessitated by quarantine regulations are a considerable handicap to our exporters.

Worcester Property Holdings Ltd. (Inquiry Report)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the formation by the directors of Savoy Hotels Limited of the subsidiary Worcester Property Holdings, Limited; and what action he proposes to take on the matter.

Mr. H. Strauss: The Inspector's Report is being printed and arrangements have been made for its publication, and for copies to be available in the Vote Office, tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Fletcher: May we know when the Minister will make an announcement about the steps that he proposes to take?

Mr. Strauss: I think that the hon. Member and other hon. Members will wish to have an opportunity of reading the Report before they ask Questions about it.

Aberdeen Blind Asylum (Contracts)

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the President of the Board of Trade what new contracts he proposes to place with the Aberdeen Blind Asylum at an early date.

Mr. H. Strauss: None, Sir. The Board of Trade is not a purchasing Department.

Lady Tweedsmuir: In view of the expressed desire of the President of the Board of Trade to attract industry and employment to the North-East of Scotland and the fact that the institution has relied on Government contracts for a very long time, cannot the Department use its influence in the right places to ensure that further contracts are placed at an early date?

Mr. Strauss: I think my hon. Friend is putting her Question to the wrong Department. There are about eight Government Departments which order goods, but the Board of Trade is not one of them.

United States Dams (Contracts)

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made to the United States Government about the grant of further contracts for the Chief Joseph and Dalles dams by the United States Army Department to United States firms, although the English Electric Company had tendered at a substantially lower price.

Mr. Amory: Representations stressing the importance we attached to the decisions on these contracts were made while they were under consideration by the United States authorities. In view of the award, instructions have been sent to our Ambassador in Washington to make


representations at the highest level, expressing our disappointment that this decision does not follow the more liberal policy which appeared to be foreshadowed by the President's message to Congress.

Mr. Jay: Were not the British prices in these cases substantially below the American prices? In view of all that has been said by American leaders about the need for "trade, not aid" in respect of competitive British products, is it not deplorable that this kind of thing should happen?

Mr. Amory: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the differential in these cases was substantial. The result is extremely disappointing.

Mr. de Freitas: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the matter being taken up at the highest level? Does he mean between the Prime Minister and the President, or does he mean by the Ambassador or a Cabinet Minister?

Mr. Lee: The 1922 Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Petrol-driven Fork-lift Trucks (Fuel Rebate)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to extend to petrol-driven fork-lift trucks used in factories the fuel tax rebate at present given to similar diesel-driven fork-lift trucks.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I regret, no, Sir.

Mr. Erroll: As satisfactory machinery already exists for giving a rebate on taxable diesel fuel, will the Chancellor consider extending the main advantage to the users of petrol fuel in these circumstances in order to avoid the unfair discrimination which now exists, which, whether intentionally or not, has a substantial and not altogether desirable influence on engineering development?

Mr. Butler: I regret that there are very few exceptions in relation to light oil. They relate only to lifeboats, chemical synthesis and fishing boats. I am not prepared to extend the list of exceptions.

Purchase Tax Revenue, Wales and Monmouthshire

Mr. Gower: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approximate annual amount of Purchase Tax collected from persons resident in Wales and Monmouthshire, adopting approximate methods of calculation which enabled him to estimate the amount of Income Tax paid by Welsh people.

Mr. R. A. Butler: If it is assumed that consumption per head in Wales and Monmouthshire is not very different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom, the amount of Purchase Tax involved would be in the region of £15 million a year. I am afraid that no material is available on which to make any closer estimate.

National Land Fund

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the balance of the National Land Fund; how much has been spent; and on what projects.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The balance at 31st March, 1954, was £56,799,174. Since the inception of the Fund, £906,881 has been spent.
I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the properties in respect of which payment has been made since the date of the last list supplied to the hon. Member.

Mr. Chetwynd: What steps is the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking to further the objects of the Fund?

Mr. Butler: I took special powers to pay for chattels in my last Budget. That is a further indication of my interest in using the Fund.

Sir H. Williams: Where is the Fund kept?

Mr. Butler: It is invested.

Mr. Grimond: Is interest earned by the capital of the Fund?

Mr. Butler: If the hon. Gentleman will put that question on the Order Paper, I will tell him. Receipts apart from interest amount to about £55,000.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the right hon. Gentleman make some of the Fund available for the National Parks Commission, for which purpose it was established?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of the reasons for which the Fund was established, and I will certainly use the Fund where I think it proper to use it.

Following is the information:

Following is the list of properties in respect of which payment has been made from the National Land Fund, since mid-1952. There were 27 earlier cases.


—
Acreage
Transferee


l. The High Close Estate, Ambleside.
535
National Trust.


2. Stoke Wood and Stoke Hill Farm, near Exeter.
196
Minister of Agriculture &amp; Fisheries.


3. Mount Grace Priory, Northallerton, Yorkshire.
10
National Trust.


4. Highstand Wood and Farm, near Carlisle.
649
Minister of Agriculture &amp; Fisheries.


5. Loch Alsh House, grounds &amp; cottage, Balmacara, Ross-shire.
15
National Trust for Scotland.


6. "The Old Lifeboat House", Port Eynon, Glamorganshire.
—
Youth Hostels Trust of England &amp; Wales.


7. Pare Le Breos Estate, Glamorgan-shire.
410
Minister of Agriculture &amp; Fisheries.


8. Northchurch Estate (comprising three farms), Hertfordshire.
371
National Trust.


9. Kildermorie Estate, Ross-shire.
18,600
Secretary of State for Scotland.

German Shipbuilders (Steel Rebates)

Mr. Wiley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has completed his inquiries about the proposed financial aid to German shipbuilders; and if he will make a further statement.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) on 24th June.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply has failed to allay the very deep anxiety of our shipbuilding industry? Is he satisfied that we are taking sufficiently energetic action to prevent this blatant evasion of the spirit of the Anglo-German agreement?

Mr. Butler: We have taken a lot of action in so far as we can operate within the field controlled by Governments. I am certainly trying to find out what further opportunities there are in this field, but I cannot interfere in a field outside the field of Government.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is not this practice of the German steel industry in conflict with the rules of the Coal and Steel Community? Will the Chancellor consider instructing our delegation at Luxembourg to make representations on this point?

Mr. Butler: This point was raised when the Economic Secretary answered Questions, and he very wisely said that it was a very complicated subject. I am investigating it, and if I see a line of action I will certainly take it.

English Steel Company Shareholders (Voting Rights)

Mr. Roy Jenkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the £10 million of capital of the English Steel Company still remaining in the hands of the Iron and Steel Realisation Agency has any voting rights in normal circumstances.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The holders of these securities have rights of the kind commonly attached to debentures and preference shares respectively. In the hon. Member's phrase, these do not include voting rights in normal circumstances.

Mr. Jenkins: Is it the policy of the Government where half the capital of an iron and steel company passes into private hands and half remains in public hands that all the control of the company should be concentrated in private hands?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir, not as a general proposition. It happens to have been a convenient operation in this case. That exactly carries out the sense of Section 18 (1) of the Iron and Steel Act, to the terms of which I would refer the hon. Member.

Mr. Jay: Does the Chancellor think he will be regarded as a reliable trustee for the taxpayer if he goes on approving dubious deals of this kind?

Mr. Butler: I should not think it was a dubious deal to sell the risk-bearing part and to keep the safe part.

Imported Vehicles (Duty)

Mr. Holt: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the rate of duty chargeable on motor cars and commercial vehicles imported into the United Kingdom.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The rate of Customs duty chargeable on such vehicles is generally 33⅓ per cent. ad valorem, or 22 2/9 per cent. If the vehicles are entitled to the benefit of Imperial Preference. With certain exceptions, Purchase Tax is also chargeable on passenger vehicles at the rate of 50 per cent. of the duty-inclusive wholesale value, and on goods vehicles at the rate of 25 per cent. of the duty-inclusive wholesale value of their chassis.

Mr. Holt: In view of the great success of the motor industry in selling in markets all over the world, what justification is there now for protecting the industry in the home market in this respect? In view of the complete lack of protection offered to, for instance, the Lancashire cotton industry against its chief competitors—there is no protection whatever—does not the Chancellor think it time that these duties were changed?

Mr. Butler: The duties date back to 1915. They were assimilated in 1938 into the structure based on the Import Duties Act, 1932, and they are now charged under the Import Duties (Consolidation) Order, 1949. They have at least a respectable history.

Tips and Gratuities (Income Tax)

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the present instructions given to inspectors of taxes with regard to taking into account for Income Tax assessment purposes the personal and voluntary payments made by customers and clients by way of tips and gratuities to employees in hotels, restaurants and other catering establishments.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Tips of this kind are chargeable to Income Tax and tax offices have instructions to arrange that the appropriate tax is collected.

Lieut. - Colonel Bromley - Davenport: Since it has always been the practice—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] Keep

quiet you Lobby fodder. Since it has always been the practice for the Inland Revenue to regard tips and gratuities as part of the assessable income of the catering staff, surely it is only reasonable that employers should equally be allowed to take personal and voluntary payments into account when assessing their total remuneration?

Mr. Butler: My hon. and gallant Friend's forcible intervention will need a little study.

International Monetary Fund (Annual Meeting)

Mr. Gaitskell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to attend the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund this summer.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Yes, Sir, I hope to attend this meeting.

Balance of Payments (Information)

Mr. Gaitskell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish the figures of the sterling balance every month, at the same time as the publication of the gold and dollar reserves.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am reviewing the publication of information about various aspects of the balance of payments and will bear the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind.

£1,000 Per Annum (Purchasing Power)

Mr. Arbuthnot: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the purchasing power today of an income of £1,000 per annum, as compared with November, 1951, for a married man with two children, taking into account the changes in taxation and allowances and in the cost-of-living index.

Mr. R. A. Butler: A married man with two children earning £1,000 now has a net income, after tax, of £898. This is equivalent in purchasing power to about £854 in November, 1951, when the net income corresponding to a similar gross income would have been £833.

Mr. Arbuthnot: In any conversations on the financial position of Members, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the


improvement that has taken place under a Conservative Government in the salary of a Member with no other income and with the average family?

Mr. Warbey: Will the Chancellor give a comparable figure for an income of £100,000 per annum?

Mr. Butler: If the hon. Member puts a question down I certainly will.

Income Tax Act, 1952 (Section 468 Applications)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the general principles upon which 14 applications have been refused under Section 468 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1952.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The general principle on which Treasury consent has been refused in these cases is that on a balance of considerations it would not have been in the national interest to grant consent. These considerations are, on the one hand, any new factors or circumstances which are represented to require the proposed transaction or other reasons for it based on the efficiency and development of the applicant's operations, and, on the other hand, the prospective loss of revenue or of foreign exchange to this country involved in the transaction.
This general principle is embodied in the terms of reference of the advisory panel to which applications are referred in cases of difficulty. The decision in all these cases to refuse consent has coincided with the advice of that panel.

Mr. Grimond: While I do not think that the principle as stated by the Chancellor is absolutely crystal clear, may I draw the attention of the Chancellor to the strictures made on the Section when the Conservative Party was in Opposition and ask him whether, in view of the criticism then made, he has considered repealing it?

Mr. Butler: As a matter of fact, its operation has been so smooth that the strictures upon it have been very considerably reduced.

Mr. Erroll: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is at least one member of the Conservative Party who still maintains the strictures on that Section?

Dollar Allocations

Mr. Grimond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a White Paper setting out the amount of dollars allocated to various classes of persons and industries; and the principles upon which the allocation is made.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I think that the hon. Member's request requires further definition before I can judge whether the White Paper on the United Kingdom Balance of Payments, 1946–1953 (Cmd. 9119) covers the subject.

Mr. Grimond: Does the Chancellor agree that this is a matter of importance—and of growing importance—as the possibility of convertibility gets nearer? Will he consider letting us have more detailed figures than those at present available in the White Paper?

Mr. Butler: If the hon. Member defines the figures he wants I will do my best to find them.

GUATEMALA (SITUATION)

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about the situation in Guatemala and about the proceedings of the, Security Council of the United Nations on the appeal made to it by the Guatemalan Government.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply. Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Guatemala has confirmed that a state of seige has been declared and that a military junta has taken over power under Colonel Diaz, Chief of Armed Forces. A decree has been issued outlawing the Guatemalan Communist Party.
I have nothing to add to the reply given yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State about the proceedings of the Security Council.

Mr. Noel-Baker: As the American Commission of Inquiry is to act for the United Nations in this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman urge that the Commission should arrive on the spot before the fighting ends and that it should go first to the place from which the invasion was launched? Would it not be dangerous to the authority of the United Nations


if it were thought that the Commission was merely a device to gain time while the rebellion succeeds?

Mr. Butler: As far as I am aware the Commission is under the Organisation of American States, and comes under Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter. It is something which is entirely constitutional and within the general framework of the United Nations. We certainly hope that it will operate not only constitutionally, but in an expeditious manner.

Mr. A. Henderson: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Commission has now started its investigations and whether the Government made a request that the Commission should investigate the circumstances surrounding the bombing of the British merchant ship two days ago, with special reference to the identity of the aircraft which caused the damage?

Mr. Butler: Yes, I was aware of this incident. We are making our own inquiries about that and as soon as we have the information we shall make it available.

Mr. T. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the fact-finding Commission has any time-table within which it has to report?

Mr. Butler: It is difficult for me to reply on the exact physical details of the Commission, but as far as we are concerned I can say on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that the sooner we hear of its activities and report the better.

Mr. A. Henderson: Has the Commission left yet?

Mr. Strachey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the matter does or does not still remain on the agenda of the Security Council?

Mr. Butler: I am informed by the Minister of State that it is not on the day-to-day agenda.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Since this Commission is to act for the United Nations, and it is four days since the decision was made by the Council, will the Government now urge that the Commission should leave immediately?

Mr. Butler: I think we can take it that my answer will be noted as representing the views of Her Majesty's Government.

DISARMAMENT SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT (WHITE PAPER)

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether he will lay the recent Report of the Sub-Committee of the Disarmament Commission of the United Nations before the House as a White Paper.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir. The Report of the Sub-Committee will be included in a White Paper on the proceedings of the Sub-Committee which it is hoped to lay before the House in the near future.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the very great importance of these discussions, could the right hon. Gentleman say whether we can have a full record of what was said by the delegates so that we may fully understand the attitude of the different Governments?

Mr. Butler: As far as I know this will be a full report, but whether it will contain absolutely every word I cannot say.

WARTIME HUTTED CAMPS (CLOSING)

Commander Maitland: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) if he will fix a date after which no local authority may use wartime hutted camps to assist in discharging its housing duties;
(2) if he will consider increasing the allocation of houses and giving financial assistance to local authorities who still have to use hutted camps for housing purposes, in order to enable them to discontinue their use.
(3) what steps he is taking to abolish the slums created by the continued use of wartime hutted camps for housing purposes.

Mr. Bullard: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he proposes to take on the Third and Final Report of the Working Party on Requisitioned Properties in Use for Housing.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): My right hon. Friend has already asked housing authorities to close down these camps as soon as possible. The number of families which have to be rehoused from camps is taken into account together with all the other relevant factors when settling a housing authority's programme. Houses built to replace hutted camps qualify for subsidy.

Commander Maitland: Does my hon. Friend realise that these hutted camps "cannot be tolerated any longer" and that this is a quotation from a report recently made on them? Will he not seriously consider setting a date by which no local authority will be allowed to use these camps for this purpose? Will he also bear in mind the condition of the children in them, realising that this is a matter of national importance?

Mr. Marples: I realise the seriousness of this problem. It was on 22nd March that the local authorities were asked to discuss this matter with the principal regional officers. Generally speaking, the hope is that these camps will be closed within three years.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Will my hon. Friend use his influence with the Secretary of State for Scotland to make sure

that a similar policy is pursued in Scotland and that the scandal is understood and appreciated there?

Mr. Marples: I would hesitate to say that my right hon. Friend would give any advice to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Bullard: May I ask my hon. Friend whether, as some local authorities took on a very big job in providing these camps, and have done a great deal of work in connection with them, a special financial arrangement will not be requires to enable them to build enough houses to rehouse those living in the camps when they are closed?

Mr. Marples: If my hon. Friend has any specific case in mind of a local authority being swamped in this connection, and will send it to me, I would like to look at it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crookshank]

The House divided: Ayes, 267: Noes, 206.

Division No. 178.]
AYES
[3.31 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Finlay, Graeme


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Fisher, Nigel


Alport, C. J. M.
Campbell, Sir David
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Cary, Sir Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Channon, H.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia


Arbuthnot, John
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fort, R.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Foster, John


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Cole, Norman
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Colegate, W. A.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Baldwin, A. E.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Barlow, Sir John
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Gammans, L. D.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Glover, D.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Crouch, R, F.
Godber, J. B.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A


Birch, Nigel
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Gough, C. F. H.


Bishop, F. P.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Gower, H. R.


Black, C. W
Davidson, Viscountess
Graham, Sir Fergus


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Deedes, W. F.
Grimond, J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Braine, B. R.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Harden, J. R. E.


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Drayson, G. B.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W H.
Drewe, Sir C.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Duthie, W. S.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Bullard, D. G.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Burden, F. F. A.
Erroll, F. J.
Heath, Edward




Higgs, J. M. C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Scott, R. Ronald


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Marples, A. E.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Holland-Martin, C. J
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Hollis, M. C.
Maude, Angus
Snadden, W. McN.


Holt, A. F.
Maudling, R.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hope, Lord John
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Speir, R. M.


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Mellor, Sir John
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Horobin, I. M.
Molson, A. H. E.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Waller
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Stewart, Henderson, (Fife, E.)


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hurd, A. R.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Storey, S.


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Neave, Airey
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Iremonger, T. L.
Nicholls, Harmar
Studholme, H. G.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Summers, G, S.


Jennings, Sir Roland
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Nutting, Anthony
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Teeling, W.


Kaberry, D.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Kerby, Capt. H B.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Kerr, H. W.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lambert, Hon. G-
Osborne, C.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Page, R. G.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Leather, E. H C.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Perkins, Sir Robert
Tilney, John


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Lindsay, Martin
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Turner, H. F. L.


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Turton, R. H.


Llewellyn, D. T.
Pitman, I. J.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Vane, W. M. F.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Powell, J. Enoch
Vosper, D. F.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wade, D. W.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Longden, Gilbert
Profumo, J. D.
Wakefield Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Wall, Major Patrick


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Redmayne, M.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Remnant, Hon. p.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


McAdden, S. J.
Renton, D. L. M.
Watkinson, H. A.


McCallum, Major D.
Ridsdale, J. E.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Robertson, Sir David
Wellwood, W.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Robson-Brown, W.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


McKibbin, A. J.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Maclay, Rt. Hon John
Roper, Sir Harold
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wills, G.


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Russell, R. S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.



Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith and




Mr. Oakshott.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Albu, A. H.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Callaghan, L. J.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Champion, A J.
Fernyhough, E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Chetwynd, G. R
Finch, H. J.


Balfour, A.
Clunie, J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Bartley, P.
Coldrick, W.
Follick, M.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Collick, P. H.
Forman, J. C.


Bence, C. R.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Crosland, C. A. R.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Benson, G.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T N


Beswick, F.
Daines, P.
Glanville, James


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Gooch, E. G.


Bing, G. H. C.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon P. C


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Grey, C. F.


Blenkinsop, A.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Boardman, H.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hale, Leslie


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Deer, G.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Bewden, H. W.
Dodds, N. N.
Hamilton, W. W


Bowles, F. G.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hannan, W.


Brockway, A. F.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hardy, E. A.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Edelman, M.
Hargreaves, A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)







Hayman, F. H.
Mayhew, C. P.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Mellish, R. J.
Snow, J. W.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Messer, Sir F.
Sorensen, R. W


Herbison, Miss M.
Mikardo, Ian
Steele, T.


Hewitson, Capt, M
Mitchison, G. R
Stokes, Rt, Hon. R. R


Hobson, C. R.
Monslow, W
Strachey, Rt. Hon, J.


Holmes, Horace
Morley, R.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Houghton, Douglas
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Mulley, F. W.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J
Swingler, S. T.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oldfield, W. H
Sylvester, G. O.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Oliver, G. H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Orbach, M.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Janner, B.
Oswald, T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Padley, W. E.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Paget, R. T.
Thornton, E.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Timmons, J.


Jenkins, R. H (Stechford)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Tomney, F.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pannell, Charles
Usborne, H. C


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Parkin, B. T.
Viant, S. P.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Paton, J.
Wallace, H. W.


Keenan, W.
Pearson, A.
Warbey, W. N.


Key, Rt. Hon. C W
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Watkins, T. E.


King, Dr. H. M
Popplewell, E.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Kinley, J.
Porter, G.
West, D. G.


Lawson, G. M.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wheeldon, W. E


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Proctor, W. T.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Lewis, Arthur
Pryde, D. J.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Lindgren, G. S.
Rankin, John
Wigg, George


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Reeves, J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Logan, D. G.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Willey, F T.


MacColl, J. E
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Williams, David (Neath)


McGhee, H. G
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


McGovern, J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


McInnes, J.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Ross, William
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


McLeavy, F.
Royle, C.
Willis, E. G.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Short, E. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon A


Mainwaring, W. H.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Yates, V. F


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)



Manuel, A. C.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Marquand, Rt Hon. H A
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers


Mason, Roy
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

[Progress, 28th June]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

3.41 p.m.

The Chairman: I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to take the new Clause relating to child allowance in the name of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) with the new Clause to provide a "tapering" for child allowance and the new Clause relating to apprentices in the name of the same right hon. Gentleman, together with the new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) relating to allowance for children.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: We are quite agreeable to having in one debate the discussion of all these Clauses as long as it is understood that if we wish we may divide on the Clause itself.

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman will not be able to divide on every one.

New Clause.—(CHILD ALLOWANCE.)

In subsection (1) of section two hundred and twelve of the Income Tax Act, 1952, as amended (which relates to relief in respect of children) the amount of relief shall be increased from tax at the standard rate on eighty-five pounds to tax at the standard rate on one hundred pounds.—[Mr. Jay.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In view of your Ruling, Sir Charles, I propose to address my remarks mainly to the new Clause that I am moving and to refer to the other proposed new Clause which provides for the tapering of the child allowance. No doubt my hon. Friends will have arguments to advance in favour of the other Amendments. I am glad to notice from the result of the Division that such a large number of hon. Members opposite have attended today to listen to the debate on the Finance Bill.
I make no apology for moving a new Clause which is similar to one that we have moved in previous years from these

benches, and one in which I have often previously declared a considerable personal interest. I make no apology because we are merely proposing relief for the large family. We attach very considerable importance to it. Indeed, we would give priority to this suggestion over a great many of the suggestions made in the course of our debates on the Finance Bill. For that reason, I am gratified to find that Members of the Liberal Party have given support to the main Amendment on this issue.
I believe that it is true that much of the poverty and much of the remaining inequality today is due not to the size of the income so much as to the size of the family that is affected. To put it more precisely, the number of dependants in a family in relation to the number of earners determines the real standard of living of the family. Indeed, it might be argued that the main defect of our Income Tax system today is its failure to take adequate account of that fact. I believe that we all tend, sincerely and very understandably, to forget this, because we are naturally inclined to think in terms of the family income rather than in terms of income per head of the household.
I noticed that earlier in our debates the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) argued that a great deal of the transfer, as he called it, within our taxation and social service systems was what he called horizontal, between one working-class family and another, rather than what he called vertical, between rich and poor. He failed to take account of the fact that a great deal of the transfer is no doubt between the single earner at a given level of income and the earner with a number of dependants. The most graphic way to illustrate the remarkable inequality that exists between families is by a careful study of the position of different families, not in terms of gross income or even of net income of the family as a whole, but in terms of the net income per head in the household, that is to say the income, after tax and after counting family allowances, divided by the number of people in the household or family.
I am not saying that there may not be some savings in overheads on a family of two. Indeed, it can be argued that a household of two is the most economical unit. The Royal Commission on the


taxation of Profits and Income gave great support to my general case. It said that it is probably true that the most favourably treated unit at the moment at almost all income levels is the husband and wife, both earning, without children. They have the advantage of having no non-earning dependants, an economical household and considerable benefits from our present Income Tax system. Indeed, the Royal Commission goes so far as to refer to the unduly favourable position of the couple, both earning. Hardship begins to arise when the couple, both earning, begin to have children and the wife, because of the children, is quite rightly unable to go on doing full-time work.
If we make a simple calculation on this basis of the income per head of the household after tax, we get quite interesting results. I am taking several income levels and allowing for our existing tax concessions and also Family Allowance. If we compare two sorts of household, on the one hand the single man or woman and, on the other, the husband and wife with three children, we get these results, if my arithmetic is correct. The single man on an income of £350 a year, or £7 a week has an income after tax of £326. If a man has a wife and three children and his wife is not earning, the income per head of the family is £78. A single man is rather more than four times better off. If we take the level of £600 a year, the figures are £519 and £128, and the single man is a little more than four times better off. At the level of £2,000 a year, it actually works out that the single man is about four and a half times better off. I think those are rather graphic figures.
Of course, it may be said that all those figures really mean is that the family without children can afford various luxuries such as television, tobacco and drink—which we find are consumed in such large amounts, taking the population as a whole—whereas the family with a large number of children has to go without those things. It may be thought that, although they have to go without those things, when we consider the necessities of food, and so on, the large family may be well off. If anyone thinks, that, I would advise him to look at some figures which surprised me in the latest Ministry of Food survey. The survey relates to the year 1951, but I do not imagine that these figures would alter much from one year

to another. It gives the actual food consumption and expenditure on food for different sections of the population and different types of family.
The survey, at page 51 of the latest edition, compares a household of one male and one female adult—roughly speaking, presumably the type of family I spoke of, where the husband and wife are both earning and without children—with a family of one or two adults and four or more children. We there find the remarkable result that the expenditure on food per head, quite apart from luxuries, of the family with two adults is actually double that of the family with four or more children. That proves emphatically that the inequality due to large families which still prevails in our system despite the child allowance, married allowance for Income Tax purposes and the family allowance paid by the Ministry of National Insurance, is still very large. If it is the case that the family with no children spends twice as much on food per head, there is clearly a very large inequality.
It may be said that all I have really proved is that if we divide our income by five or six there is very much less left after tax than if we divide it by one. That is a great truth which no one denies but which no one really acts upon—at any rate the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not. An interesting point picked out by the Royal Commission was that in some countries the whole Income Tax structure does attempt to act upon this truth much more effectively than ours. Based on what the Commission called the equation system, it regards the household not as one unit of taxation but as two, three, four, or five units and divides the gross income by that number before charging tax. If we were to do that with our Income Tax system at present, particularly in the lower-middle and middle-class incomes, we would produce most revolutionary effects in the amount of income paid in Income Tax by large families. It is interesting to note that France enforces that system.
We are not suggesting that anything so radically or revolutionarily favourable to the larger family should be introduced into our tax system. Nevertheless, I do think it is worth the Committee recognising, in passing, that that system does prevail. The fact that we do not include it in our arrangements is an ade-


quate reason for being rather more favourable to the large family through the traditional child allowance, as we are suggesting in this new Clause.
I speak for myself, although this may include some others, in saying that in this matter we may have been the victims of a certain confusion of mind. We have tended to think we were meeting the problem by increasing the married allowance for Income Tax purposes. The Labour Government, in 1951, increased both the child allowance and the married allowance and we conceived ourselves to be alleviating this problem; but, in so far as one increases the married allowance one actually relieves further the couple who are both earning and without children who, as the Royal Commission showed, are probably the most favoured people under our existing system. I suspected the Chancellor also of falling into that conclusion the other day when he spoke of his sympathy for the married man. He may have had in mind the family with a large number of dependants. Of course it is that family, and not the married man as such, that is suffering under the existing system.
The Royal Commission proposed as a fairly major reform of our system an alteration of the child allowance. The majority Report wants to do that in such a way that the relief per child is greater as we go up the income scale. As I understand the majority proposals, there would be no benefit to anyone where the family income was less than £850 a year. The minority proposals would give benefit up to that level, but above that level would give an increasing benefit as the gross income rose. I am not convinced that it is right to make the child allowance discriminate according to the size of the income. I cannot quite understand why it should cost more to feed or clothe a child because one has a higher income. Therefore, all we are proposing to do is to give a straight increase in the child allowance from £85 to £100 for every child.
I would not be greatly surprised if the Chancellor told us that he could not do that because of the high cost. Nevertheless, I think there is one interesting conclusion from the statistics of this argument that changes in tax which would give very considerable relief

to the large family cost surprisingly little in terms of revenue lost. The majority proposals of the Royal Commission would, I think, cost only £16 million a year in revenue. At first sight that may be rather surprising because obviously it would be a very considerable relief to large families. I presume the reason is that there are remarkably few large families in the community; or, at any rate, that the proportion of families with more than two children is surprisingly small.
Of course, the implication of that is that it is possible for this Committee, or for the Government, to give quite considerable relief to the worst cases without involving the total Budget in a very heavy expense. Indeed, the fact is that the families of three, four, five and upwards, are to some extent a small, and—if I may put it vividly—an oppressed minority under our present system of taxation and family allowances.

4.0 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Hear, hear.

Mr. Jay: I am glad to have the support of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) on this rare occasion. Having convinced him, perhaps I have said quite enough on that point, and I would therefore merely add, on the subject of the new Clause referring to the tapering of the child allowance, that it seems to us, at any rate, that the Royal Commission, which deals with this at page 58 of its Report, has made an exceedingly strong technical case for altering the present defects in the existing system. The Report states:
An income of £85 in the child results in £170 in all being relieved, £85 in the child and £85 in the parent: an income of £86 in the child gives the parent no relief.
That would seem to be a technical fault in the tax as it now stands, and I am sure that the attention of the Chancellor has already been drawn to it. But we have done our best to draw his attention to it by putting down the new Clause, and though, as I gather, we cannot vote on this point, even should we wish to do so, I hope that the Chancellor will give it serious consideration.
Finally, may I emphasise that we feel that on the major issue there is a serious case, quite apart from all partisan argu-


ment? If the Chancellor finds, or imagines, that he has not the revenue to sacrifice in order to make this concession this year, I hope that, in the unlikely event of his still being responsible for these matters next year, he will give in his consideration a very high priority in tax relief to these claims.

Mr. J. Grimond: I do not think that anyone who has had the experience—as the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and I have—of bringing up a family can doubt that it is an extremely expensive business. Nor can they doubt that the concessions at present given by the Treasury come nowhere near compensating for the additional expense.
I believe that two of the new Clauses, those of the right hon. Member about "tapering" and my own, fulfil almost exactly the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The new Clause to which the right hon. Gentleman has chiefly addressed his remarks seeks a straight increase in the child allowance. I am sure that at the moment we could all agree that the family is unduly penalised by our tax system, but I believe that the Chancellor may more willingly take the straight recommendations of the Royal Commission than anything else; nevertheless, I would support both a straight increase and the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
When, earlier in our debates on the Finance Bill, I mentioned this matter, the Chancellor was a little pained, as Chancellor's often are, that he had not been given credit for his good deeds. He wore that expression which one sometimes sees on the face of St. Sebastian in the pictures of the late Italian period, where one sees the saint full of arrows, wearing an expression of resignation and boredom. It is true that he did give some slight concession to the family, but it is also true that the Royal Commission expressly states that in its view the family is still at a very grave disadvantage.
I would also draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to the correspondence which has lately appeared in the "Manchester Guardian," from which it is quite clear that what the medium-grade Income Tax payers finds so expensive is bringing up their children. Even today, if the Financial Secretary looks at the "Manchester Guardian," he

will see a letter from someone in which it is pointed out that, even with State scholarships, it costs £300 or £400 to educate two children.
At present the only child allowance is £85, which ceases at the age of 16, unless the child is educated after that age; and it is not available if the child has any other income. In addition, as the right hon. Member for Battersea, North has said, there is no tapering provision, and if the income is £86 the parent loses the whole allowance. As I have said, it cannot be pretended that this allowance anything like covers even the cost of feeding a child, far less clothing or educating one, or providing additional accommodation.
In my view, there are two points to be considered. There is the need for an increase in the child allowance and there is also the strong case which is made by the Royal Commission for making the scale to some extent a sliding scale. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North considers that the majority Report of the Royal Commission is not convincing on this point, but I would ask him to consider—whatever may be the ethical grounds of the whole matter—that in fact the better-off people do have to spend much more on their children. In the present state of society, I think that we must take that for granted.
At present a married man with an income of £500 and two children pays the same tax as a single man with an income of £166. A married man with an income of £2,000 a year pays the same tax as a single man with an income of £1,666. In fact, as we go up the scale, the position of the married man with children gets progressively very much worse compared with that of a single man, or of a family without children. I do not argue that the differential should be carried on right up the scale in the same degree, but I maintain that at the moment the two are too close together in the higher ranges of Income Tax, and therefore there is something to be said for a sliding scale as recommended by the Royal Commission.
It is greatly to the advantage of this country as a whole to encourage the middle classes, the professional classes, the skilled men, the better paid work people in industry, to have children. I would say that those of them who can do so should be responsible for bearing the cost of some part of the education of their children as well as their upbringing.
It seems to me that there may be at least three major objections to these proposals. First, there is the cost, which has been dealt with to some extent by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North. I do not believe that the cost would be so great compared with the injustice which is done at present. If the cost is unbearable, there is at least a strong case, in my opinion, for putting more tax on the single man, or a family without children, and less tax on the family with children. I should be happy to see that done.
The second objection is that the Chancellor may argue that he does not wish to deal with the matter piecemeal. He may say that the recommendations of the Royal Commission have not been published for very long and that he has not had proper time to consider them as a whole. There may be a certain amount of force in that argument. If the Chancellor can assure us that he is favourably disposed towards the general case made from this side of the Committee, I can see that he may have some case for saying that he cannot be expected to do anything at once.
But I would draw his attention to the fact that the conclusions on this matter, as set out in the Report of the Royal Commission, are very complete and self-contained, and that he might at least, after the debates we had on the subject last year, be able to show us which way his mind is working. I must confess, however, that last year I was not convinced that the case was so strong that it required him to act then. Now the Royal Commission has reported and the Chancellor has had a further year to consider the matter, and I feel that he ought to be able to give some idea of his general views.
Lastly, there is the point that it seems that some change of this sort in our tax system would be in accord with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Population. There may be a dispute as to what the size of the population ought to be but there can be very little dispute that, whatever it is, it ought to be reasonably balanced. Surely it will not be said that it is desirable that the country should encourage a low birth-rate, especially among the skilled and professional classes, at a time when the

number of old people is growing very rapidly.
The general case for some change in the tax system which will give both the same general increase in allowances and also do something to cure the discrepancy between the differences in the higher ranges of income and the lower, as between married men with families and single men, is necessary. In view of the Report of the Royal Commission, I very much hope that the Chancellor will be able to give us some encouragement showing that he, too, is of the same mind.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), I declare an interest in this matter, but it is not one which leads me into supporting the new Clause. The right hon. Gentleman failed to make his entire case good, and he did not disclose to the Committee that the proposal covers only a fraction of the field. He made some slighting remarks about those who have a high income and said that he did not think that their children ought to cost them more. I should have thought that if he consulted his professional colleagues in the £2,000 a year class, or just over, he would find that they feel very strongly that any tax lightening for children should apply throughout the scale. I imagine that, like the right hon. Gentleman, they send their children to schools where fees have to be paid and perhaps afterwards to the university, where I believe the right hon. Gentleman went himself.
Although perhaps as a party hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not think it quite correct and appropriate at the moment to suggest that allowances for children should range through the Surtax scale, the right hon. Gentleman must have had close contact with many people in that scale who would welcome such allowances when they can be given.

Mr. Jay: I assure the noble Lord that my proposal would help everybody at any level of income within the Income Tax scale. The only people it would not help would be those who are not at present paying any Income Tax. I wish to help them through family allowances, but I did not refer to that because it would have been out of order.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am sure that the professional friends of the right hon. Gentleman whom I have been trying to imagine—and perhaps they exist in fact—would—agree that his proposals would operate through the scale, but where they would disagree is with his remark that it should not cost anybody in that class anything more to feed and to clothe a child. He left out, perhaps deliberately, education and the general circumstances of living of many people in the professional classes.
To that extent he overtly ignored one end of the scale. He also completely ignored the other end of the scale and did not make that clear to the Committee at all. He did not disclose that no person with three children with an income of between £600 and £700 a year pays any tax provided that the income is all earned. Therefore, the proposal would not affect anybody with three children with an income between £600 and £700. It is designed for a very narrow class of persons earning between £700 and £2,000 a year, over which sum the right hon. Gentleman's political strictures begin to apply. I want the Committee to be quite clear about that. I make the point absolutely firmly because it is the basis upon which I hope to ask the Chancellor to reject the new Clause.

Mr. Grimond: Of course, this is an alteration of Income Tax and it can apply only to Income Tax payers. It might well be that those who support the proposal would also think it desirable to increase the family allowance or widows' pensions or many other of those benefits which would affect the class of lower income earner to which the noble Lord referred.

4.15 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I should be only too delighted to have a discussion on family allowances, but it would be out of order now. I am trying to confine my remarks to the proposal, and I maintain that what I have attempted to tell the Committee is true.
On those grounds I hope that the Chancellor will not accept the new Clause. We have received the Report of the Royal Commission. The proposals in it must be with the Treasury. If justice is to be done in this field, it must be done

throughout the whole scale. It must he done to those with very small earnings indeed who are finding it extremely difficult to maintain their families and, in justice, it should be carried to the top, or near to the top, of the Surtax scale, provided the proposals are reasonable.
I hope that the Chancellor will not deal piecemeal with the matter this year, but will direct his officials to investigate very carefully the many proposals of the Royal Commission, albeit I thought some of them were not entirely satisfactory, and really get down to a reform in this field of taxation which is crying out for reform when one considers the immense advances that are being made in other countries which are directed towards the growth and maintenance of the population and the general enjoyment of the masses.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I am not at all surprised at the point of view expressed by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). It is evident that he realises that in this country there are still two nations. Not only does he realise that, but he is determined that the two nations shall continue.
I am more than surprised to find the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) taking almost the same point of view. He said that we took it for granted that the better-off spend more on their families. Of course, we take it for granted that they spend more on their families. The simple reason is that they have much more money to spend than have the poorer people in the community. We do not accept the deduction of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that, because the better-off spend more on their families, we should use public funds to make it possible for them to be in a much better position than they are at present, and use this sliding scale so that the better-off may get an even bigger whack of public money than they do now.

Mr. Grimond: There is no question of giving a whack of public money. This is a question of slightly reducing the amount of tax they pay.

Miss Herbison: I do not accept that. All of us who are within a definite range of income have to pay Income Tax. Many of us pay it gladly because of the benefit not to ourselves but to others less


well off. It is something which we have accepted for a long time. If the hon. Member's suggestion were accepted, it would mean that the better-off would have less responsibility, and they would have it at the expense of the less well-off.

Mr. Grimond: I said that the single man could be more highly taxed and the better-off men with families could be slightly less taxed. In that case there might be no deduction in the amount of tax collected from any class but merely a redistribution between taxpayers in the same class.

Miss Herbison: The hon. Member is going away from the proposal which he made. He said quite clearly in his speech that he was in support of the majority Report recommendations. Those recommendations were that there should be a sliding scale. In other words, the already better-off would be given a bigger child allowance than the less well-off. I, as a single person, would be willing to be taxed even more heavily if children would benefit, but I should object strenuously to being taxed more heavily so that people much better off than I am would have a bigger whack of the share that I was ready to give up.
If we want to get the support of all those whose taxation would have to be heavier, we would have to show them that we in Parliament were trying to be just. The only way that one could possibly be just would be to accept what my right hon. Friend suggested in introducing the new Clause—to make the allowance the same for every child but higher than the present family allowance. That is of the greatest importance.
The facts given by my right hon. Friend show clearly the great hardships that are being suffered by families with more than two, and particularly with more than three, children. It is also true that wise, sensible and good parents are not only content to think about their children's immediate future. They consider also the future of the child when it becomes an adult. They want the very best for their children. I say to the noble Lord that it is not only people with middle-class incomes or those who pay Surtax who have a great desire to see their children going not only to good schools, but to the university. There are

many examples of this in the area from which I come. My own family is a very good example. My father had a very low income as a miner, but he was a parent who desired for his children the best that he could possibly get. He was able to send three of his children to the university on the miserable wage that he was getting.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Lady misunderstands the purpose of my speech and has allowed a little prejudiced reflection to creep into her criticism of it. I went out of my way to say that I thought something ought to be done for people below £700 a year right down to the lowest wage earner with family responsibilities. I hoped that that would be done next year. I merely pointed out that the proposal of the hon. Lady's right hon. Friend did not attempt to do this.

Miss Herbison: If my right hon. Friend or I tried to make a case we would be ruled out of order, because the Clause deals only with those who pay Income Tax. The people to whom the noble Lord refers are outside the range of Income Tax. If we were to accept the noble Lord's sliding scale, there would be much less chance for his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, even next year, to ensure that in another part of the Finance Bill he would be able to give help to those at present below the level of Income Tax. Whichever way one examines the noble Lord's speech, therefore, it is a plea for the people who are already very well-off.
I have spoken about the desire of good parents to get the very best in education for their children. That is good for the individual child, but it is of the greatest importance also for the nation that parents ought to be able to get the best. Every child should be able to develop to the full the talents and skills that God has given it at birth. That is important. not only for the individual child and the happy life to which it will lead, but for the nation, which depends for its whole livelihood on what we can do as a great industrial nation.
For that reason also it would be a very good thing if the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year, not waiting until next year, could accept the very modest request contained in the new Clause. It would relieve harassed parents and would


give to every child a chance of developing to the full all its abilities. We on this side do not take for granted that there should be special benefits for children who are born into better-off homes. We take for granted that every child is born equal and ought to have these chances. I beg of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of his hon. Friends at the Treasury to give these points their serious and sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I understand that the new Clause relating to apprentices and their allowances is being discussed in this general debate. I should therefore like to press the case, which we argued not only last year but on two or three previous occasions, for similar treatment for the parents of apprentices as for parents of children undergoing full-time education, who are given a concession equal to £85 at the standard rate of Income Tax.
The Economic Secretary is as well aware of the arguments as I am. We discussed the matter fully last year and the hon. Gentleman was sympathetic to the problem which we posed. The 1938 Act recognised the existence of this problem, and the concession on £13 was given at that time. We then moved from the £13 limit to £26, and last year we asked for the full £85 concession to be made to the parents of apprentices.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not feel that he could go the full way with us, but he agreed to accept the principle of what we were saying and he increased the allowance to £52. I do not know whether it was the extremely brilliant speech of the hon. Member who moved the new Clause on that occasion or the obvious justice of the case which influenced the right hon. Gentleman. At any rate, he conceded the principle and suggested that the difficulty which made it impossible to go the full way was that the Royal Commission at that time had still not reported and it would be premature to equate the true allowances until such time as he had had an opportunity to look at the whole complicated problem in the light of the advice which would be submitted to him by the Royal Commission. The position, therefore, is that the gap was narrowed appreciably, and for that we are grateful. We now ask the Economic Secretary to go the whole way.
4.30 p.m.
I put it to the hon. Gentleman that, if he agreed to concede in full the £85, he would in fact equate the two claims, because where children win bursaries or things of that kind their parents are not taxed upon them, although they mean a concession to them of something like £300. I cannot say too strongly that we do not in the slightest degree suggest that there should be a levelling down. We believe that it is right and proper that, where a child is undertaking educational studies of that type, the parents should be given encouragement and should receive all the concessions which it is possible to give them.
The only point we are making is that it is now quite obviously unfair not to give these advantages to the child of a person who sacrifices quite a lot in the way of income from the child in order to ensure that he becomes a good craftsman and undertakes an apprenticeship which, at its termination, will not only serve that boy well but will serve the nation equally well.
We now have the advantage of the advice of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income in their Second Report (Cmd. 9105), in which we see the conclusions to which these distinguished gentlemen came. In paragraphs 187 to 192, they deal very adequately with this problem. They say:
In the case of the child at an educational establishment, income accruing in the form of scholarship emoluments is not counted in reckoning his income for the purpose of the £85 limit, and the test that decides whether his parent is to receive child allowance in respect of him or not is the simple one of determining whether the child's total income, excluding these emoluments, exceeds £85.
That is the sort of thing which we were saying last year, and which we say now. We think it is right and proper that it should be the case. The Royal Commission also point out:
But the apprentice comes under a different rule in that an income of less than £85 accruing to him would disqualify his parents from the allowance.
I know that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury realises the educational point here. In paragraph 189, the Report goes on to say:
We cannot feel surprised that those interested in the position of the apprentice complain that there is no good reason for these distinctions. The cause of them, as we understand the matter, lies in the fact that the 1938


scheme for apprentices was intended to meet the specific case of the unpaid apprentice and was not intended to equate apprenticeship with general education. The figure of £13 allowed was meant to prevent an apprentice who was not altogether unpaid, in that he received something by way of pocket money, from being excluded from the category of those whose parents were entitled to relief. By the same reasoning, on the other hand, the value of free board, lodging or clothing had to be included in the computation of the value of the emoluments. The recent increases of the figure of £26 and now £52 appear to be no more than a recognition that the requirements of pocket money are now somewhat inflated.
That is a masterly under-statement, I should have thought, speaking on behalf of all the fathers present. In paragraph 190, the Report says:
The distinction between the two oases wears somewhat thin when it is appreciated that an 'educational establishment' includes one that gives purely vocational instruction. But, given the common element in the two cases, we think that it is wrong, because it creates, needlessly, a sense of injustice, to disqualify the parent of an apprentice in any case in which the parent of a child receiving general education would not similarly be disqualified. We recommend accordingly that an apprentice receiving full-time instruction for the specified period (two years or more) should be treated in the same way of this purpose as a child receiving full-time instruction at an educational establishment.
Last year we reached the position in which the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in replying to the debate, said:
However, I must also put to the Committee certain objections on the other side. We heard the usual thing about Royal Commissions, and that one should not shelter behind them. The Committee must recognise that there are great advantages in obtaining the advice of a body of this experience and knowledge and which is considering this particular problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 11th June, 1953; Vol. 516, c. 584.]
We saw the point of the hon. Gentleman's argument, and we waited, with what patience we could muster, for the Report of the Royal Commission and for this year's debate on this very important subject. We now hope that the Government will recognise the very changed conditions in the sphere of apprenticeship, since the whole background of premiums and pocket money has gone, and will realise that in this age there is indeed very great competition between various types of industry for the services of our young men and women.
It is inevitable, if we are to maintain our ability to earn our living, that we

must invest more and more in getting boys into apprenticeships and in encouraging parents not to hang back, as it were, from careers of that kind for their sons in favour of the higher wages to be obtained in unskilled industry, but to realise that, by putting their youngsters to apprenticeships in craft industries, they will ultimately reap the benefit, while the nation as a whole will also benefit.
I should have thought that in these days, when we have this competition, it was essential that we should keep abreast of events, and should make it obvious that we will not penalise parents who put their boys to apprenticeships in craft industries, as I am afraid we have been doing in the past. There is no politics in this; it is purely a matter for consideration by the Government as to the justice of the case we are making for the implementation of the £85 limit.
I should like to repeat that no argument was put from the Treasury Bench last year against the fundamental point which we made in this respect. It was purely a case of awaiting the Report of the Royal Commission, and indeed the Government accepted the principle of the claim when they agreed to advance the allowance from £26 to £52. Therefore, I cannot see a single reason for any further delay. I know that hon. Members opposite feel just as strongly on this matter as some of us do; in fact, some of them said so in the debate.
We therefore ask the Economic Secretary to say that the time has arrived when the Government fully agree that it is in the interests of the nation as a whole that we should invest more in producing good craftsmen, and that the change which has taken place in the conditions of apprenticeship now makes the ideas of 1938 quite out of keeping with modern events.
We hope the Economic Secretary will say that it is the determination of the Government to equate the two allowances in the cases of boys having full-time education and those serving apprenticeships. I hope we shall not be disappointed this time, and I also hope that we shall not have any splitting of the difference in order to arrive at something in the neighbourhood of £70. I speak for the whole of my party on this issue, and I hope the Economic Secretary will tell us that this time the Government agree to equate the two claims.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I wish to add a very few words to the debate in support of what has been said by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). I would repeat what I believe was said last year—although I have no OFFICIAL REPORT before me—that there are no party politics in this issue. I feel that it would be wrong as a matter of principle to endeavour to implement piecemeal any of the proposals of the Royal Commission to which the hon. Gentleman made reference. I prefer that they should be dealt with at a later date, upon a more comprehensive basis.
My sole reason for intervening is to make two points, which follow directly from what the hon. Member for Newton said. It is often popularly supposed that the rate of industrial development and expansion, and of scientific progress, depend for the most part upon the money which may be invested in industrial concerns in the form of new capital. In my opinion, that is a lesser consideration, the more important consideration being to attract into general industry over a very wide range of industries, which I shall not attempt to delineate—a continuous flow of suitable young men, and in some instances of young women, as apprentices who will thus ensure that the rate of industrial and scientific progress is maintained in terms of skilled manpower and craftsmanship, both in the nationalised and the private sectors of industry.
Secondly—and this is a psychological factor of the utmost importance—the spread of popular education has meant that many parents who themselves worked for many years in industry regard apprenticeship as something less reputable for their children than secondary or grammar school education followed by university education. A French saying which was often used 30 or 40 years ago in very many applications was Il n'y a pas de sal metier. That is abundantly true today. It is often believed that there is something a little distasteful about a child leaving a secondary or grammar school and becoming an industrial apprentice. I believe that to be a wholly misconceived notion. We ought to do everything possible to encourage young men and young women to go into indentured apprenticeship approved alike by trade unions and employers' associations. The discrimination which still

exists today in the allowance for apprenticeship—although my right hon. Friend the Chancellor increased the allowance last year—and the allowance for a child undergoing full-time education at a higher educational establishment is a contributory cause to the insufficient rate of flow of apprentices into industry.
4.45 p.m.
While I am opposed to dealing on a piecemeal basis with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, I remind the Committee that we are just as concerned on this side of the Committee as are hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite about the position of apprenticeship in industry generally. We hope that next year my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will remedy the anomaly that exists in allowing relief of only £52 in the case of apprentices, and £85 in the case of young men and women undergoing full-time education.

Dr. Horace King: The hon. Members for Newton (Mr. Lee) and Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) have made very important speeches. I wish I had the opportunity of developing at length the serious point that the hon. Member for Kidderminster has just made about the recognition of industrial apprenticeship as comparable to apprenticeship to the learned professions via the universities.
I wish to raise a narrow point which the Chancellor will find embodied in a proposed new Clause standing in the name of some of my hon. Friends, and which asks him to make a small contribution by way of tax concession to removing one of the anomalies which exist as extra burdens on the parents of children suffering from disabilities. Section 212 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1952, which is the main Section from which all our discussion flows today, helps parents who have bright children who go on for further education. That is right and proper.
When a child of 16 becomes a wage-earner, tax relief in respect of that child ought to be removed, but if the child stays on at a grammar school, and goes on to a university or some other kind of post-secondary training, he does not earn money, even if he has a scholarship or a bursary or some kind of grant. He still is a financial liability to his parents in college or term time, and certainly during


vacation. The father gets relief to the extent of £85 at the standard rate. Moreover, if the bright child is in receipt of an income up to £85, that money is disallowed in conceding to the parent his tax relief. All that is excellent. Indeed, we want to raise the £85 to £100.
Unlike the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), we believe that while special and unjust burdens are being carried by parents of children in income ranges below which we can help in our Finance Bill proposals this time, that fact should not stop us from trying to tidy up and make more just the relief that we give inside the upper income group.
Having called the attention of the Committee to what happens to the father of the bright child, I now want to refer to children who are at the other end of the intellectual scale. For instance, there are the spastics, about whom hon. Members can read in last night's Adjournment debate. There are children suffering from cerebral palsy, epileptics and mentally backward children, who are in every way a complete liability to their parents. Under the present Income Tax law, these children after the age of 16 are classed as dependants. The parent gets dependant relief, which is only £60. If we give tax relief of £85 in respect of the able children proceeding to further education at a university, the same relief at any rate ought to be given to the parents whose children are a complete liability because they do not go out to work or go on to further education.
Few people other than the unfortunate parents who carry such burdens realise what a tremendous disadvantage is suffered by a handicapped child. I have in mind a friend of mine, the father of an epileptic son, who literally can never be left alone. When he goes out into the street, his father or mother must be with him. The worst of the spastic children need constant care and attention by their parents for 24 hours a day. The mentally defective child is the worst, because although it grows up it remains a child, no matter at what age, needing all the care from its parents that a child of three years or four years of age usually gets.
These handicapped children bring nothing into the home. Dependants, for whom Income Tax relief is given, are

allowed to earn a maximum yearly income of £85 without interfering with the qualification of the person concerned to get the relief of £60. But the handicapped child cannot earn any money, makes no contribution to the household and is a complete liability. All that it has to give to the parents is the gratitude, affection and love which is one of the most remarkable features of the handicapped children I am speaking about who, handicapped as they may be, do appreciate what the parents are doing for them.
Even more curious is the fact that if the handicapped child goes to a special school for spastics, for the blind, for the deaf, for the epileptic or the cripple, the original Section stands and the parent is entitled to the full tax relief. The handicapped child is continuing its further education and is entitled to the £85 relief which the bright child going to a university is getting, even though, so far as the parent is concerned, the handicapped child in a special school is a less financial as well as less physical and mental liability than if he were at home. The cost to a parent of keeping the child is less when the child goes to a special institution, yet the parent gets a tax relief for a child who goes to a special school.
Not all handicapped children are in a special school. Some are too seriously handicapped to go to any special school in the country. If they are classed as ineducable there is obviously no special school to which they can go. Moreover, in respect of most of the disabilities which exist among children, we are still very short of special school provision. If it is the State's fault that there is not a special school to which a child can be sent, it is certainly unjust to penalise the parent who cannot send his child for special education because provision is not made.
If Members of the Committee will look at the Ministry of Education's latest Report, they will find that we are short of special school accommodation for 20,500 children. Of these, 12,500 are educationally subnormal, so that to penalise financially the parents of an educationally subnormal child because they have not sent the child to a school which does not exist is obviously fantastically wrong. I hasten to say that the concession—the narrow proposal I am speaking about—would not cost 20,000 times £20 a year but a much


smaller sum, because many parents of handicapped children are below the income range at which this benefit would operate. It would be concerned with only a very narrow group, between certain ages.
Sometimes the parent will not let the child go to a special school or a mental institution. It is very easy to be glib and to say that a parent ought to do so if some kind of efficient preparation or treatment for the handicapped child exists, or else get only the concession which is given at present. It is very easy to be wise about someone else's parental problems.
The mother who devotes herself to a helpless child is sometimes afraid, having looked after, protected and sheltered the child for five or 10 years, to let it go into whatever may seem to be theoretically the best special institution. Some of us try to persuade mothers, when the opportunity arises, to conquer that fear, and to send children to the special provision which is made, but it is not so easy as it might seem, especially as the provision for various kinds of handicap is not uniformly good.
It is often the most devoted parents and the worst cases of handicapped children who suffer the particular injustice which we are trying to get rid of this afternoon. I admit that the new Clause I have spoken of represents a microscopic amendment. It does very little, and its help will go only to parents whose incomes are large enough to make the concession worth while. But it will help. and it will be some recognition on the part of the Chancellor and this Committee of the valuable work being done by parents who are unfortunate enough to have a handicapped child, and who are proud enough, or affectionate enough, or skilled enough, to handle the whole question of the care and education of the child themselves.
I admit that it is part of a much bigger problem that such parents, if their income is low, lose all kinds of benefits. They lose the family allowance when the child reaches the age of 15 years and, if they are poor, they have to wait until the child is 16 before National Assistance benefit can be claimed. We cannot solve that problem inside this new Clause and in this Bill, but I feel sincerely that if I have stated the case clearly not a single Member of the Committee can fail to be

convinced of the necessity to remove what is in the first place an injustice, and an injustice which is being done to some of the finest and most unfortunate parents in the community at the present time. I hope that whatever the Chancellor does on the broad request which is being made, he will at least concede this very narrow point.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) and also the remarks made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). I was very interested to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to the fact that the apprenticeship in engineering, or indeed in any trade, was at one time, in a certain respect, rather despised in comparison with entry into a profession. There is still current today an idea that apprenticeship into the engineering industry today is similar to what it was when my hon. Friends the Members for Newton and Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) and I were apprenticed.
The engineering industry today is a very complicated one, and a successful apprenticeship in modern engineering practice and technique calls for something more than a boy who is in a sense stupid. When my hon. Friends and I were apprenticed, we did not need such great technical or mathematical knowledge as a boy being apprenticed today requires. Employers in modern engineering plants, especially in the Midlands and in Scotland, are spending a lot of money in providing training in the factory and indeed in teaching mathematics in the factory in order to provide for the industry the engineers and technicians who will be needed in the future.
I still remember how a few years ago it always struck me as being rather stupid that when a young lady I knew who succeeded in winning university awards valued at £285 or £305 per year the scholarships were not taken into account when the parents claimed Income Tax relief, and she was in residence at a university for about 28 weeks in the year, whereas in the case of a boy apprentice getting £2 a week and living at home, and who had to go to a technical school, to have instruments bought for him and who had to acquire technical books, his parents were allowed no Income Tax relief at all for him.
5.0 p.m.
That always struck me as being very stupid indeed. Here were parents getting Income Tax relief in respect of a daughter whose income from scholarships for 26 weeks in the year when in residence at the university was higher than theirs. The same parents whose son was an engineering apprentice and who was receiving £2 a week, would receive no Income Tax relief at all. That strikes me as a most stupid anomaly, particularly when the demands made on an apprentice in the matter of education and the acquisition of instruments, which are very expensive, are so high.
It is about time that engineering apprentices were put on the same footing for purposes of Income Tax relief as a student undergoing full-time education. Not long ago, I went round a factory in Glasgow which is running its own school on the premises for the purpose of teaching the boys the rudiments of engineering practice; but I was told that even that was not a sufficient incentive to boys to become apprentices.
I am afraid that today there are many boys, both in engineering and in other fields, who are being pushed and squeezed into wrong careers because not sufficient security is being given to them in the engineering industry. When the hon. Member for Kidderminster talks about boys not becoming apprentices because apprenticeship appears to some to be less dignified than other professions, I would assure him, as one who was an apprentice, who is the father of two children, and who lived in South Wales between 1924 and 1936, that I and many of my colleagues in the engineering industry and many of my friends in the mining industry used to say, as a result of our own experience between the two wars, that if we could help it none of our children would enter those industries. It was not because we felt that members of our trades had a lower status than articled clerks or civil servants, but simply because of our own personal experience between the wars. That is the real reason we are short of engineering technicians today.
Let us be careful when we encourage boys to become apprentices that we give them the assurance that they will not undergo the same experience as their

fathers, because, unless we do we may push the industry back to where it was 20 years ago. I ask the Economic Secretary to give serious consideration to the matter of the placing of apprentices in modern engineering plant on an equal footing with those undergoing full-time education, Such boys have to be students and have to acquire as much knowledge and develop as much capacity in observing very intricate engineering problems as university students. We have to place those apprentices, for the purpose of Income Tax relief, on the same level as full-time students.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I rise to support the case which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) and others for placing apprentices in regard to Income Tax relief on precisely the same footing as all other students. This is a matter which has the support of both sides of the Committee, and the only argument that has been adduced against it was that of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who said he did not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to deal with this matter in a piecemeal fashion. I hope that the Chancellor will not accept that argument.
We have been urging this matter year after year, and for the last two years have been asked to wait because it was under consideration by a Royal Commission. That Royal Commission has now considered the matter, and has completely vindicated everything that we have been urging. It is not good enough for the hon. Member for Kidderminster to say that the Chancellor ought to wait another year in order to make a comprehensive review of this aspect of legislation. It is a matter which can quite easily be segregated from all the other recommendations of the Royal Commission.
The findings of the Royal Commission come out firmly, fully and explicitly in support of putting Income Tax relief for apprentices on precisely the same footing for all other students. As my hon. Friends have urged, the case for that is overwhelming. I am convinced that it is not only a social injustice to maintain this discrimination, but is also a national disservice to do so. The burden on the parents is precisely the same whether the boy is an apprentice or a university student.
To maintain in these days that there should be some discrimination based on social status between the two is quite false, quite unsound and very unwise. Indeed, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, the need for the recruitment of technicians into the engineering industry and into industry generally is one of the foremost national needs at the present time. We require every possible skill and every possible perfection of technique that we can get. This may be only one modest method by 'which we can contribute to that end, but it can be said in its favour that it will not cost the Exchequer a great deal. For these reasons, I raise my voice in support of what has been said in the debate and hope that the Chancellor will accept the proposal.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): This is a most important and an extremely interesting subject, and the speeches made from both sides of the Committee have been of great help to the Government in trying to formulate a view on what is, of course, an extremely complex section of our Income Tax law. It is bound to be so. because it probably expresses better than any part of the law the eternal conflict between having a tax system which is simple and one which does justice in the multiplicity of individual cases. It is terribly difficult to try to come to a correct and fair balance between those considerations.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very grateful indeed to the Royal Commission for the extremely valuable work it has done on this subject, and for the most interesting, helpful and thoughtful recommendations which it has put forward. My right hon. Friend considers—indeed I am sure we all consider—that its recommendations should have the most careful study by all Members of this Committee and by the public as a whole. My right hon. Friend also considers that now that we have the Report of the Royal Commission, and therefore an opportunity really to tackle this complicated branch of the Income Tax law in its entirety, it would be unwise to tackle it except on a comprehensive and logical basis. I will try to explain one or two of the reasons why my right hon. Friend takes that view.
In his Second Reading speech my right hon. Friend said clearly to the Committee

that he did not feel that he could this year implement any of the recommendations of the Royal Commission's Report, for a number of reasons. In the first place, there inevitably arises the question of cost, and, as the Committee is aware, my right hon. Friend this year is working to an extremely narrow margin. He does not feel that he has any money to spare for large tax concessions. That is the first point.

Mr. Hugh Dalton: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the cost of each of these proposals?

Mr. Maudling: That is my intention. The next point, of course, is that the Royal Commission did not indicate any particular order of priority in its recommendations which would guide us in the selection of certain recommendations rather than others if we should decide contrary to the views of my right hon. Friend, to pick out some in advance of others.
Then it is true, of course, that the Report was received only very recently and after my right hon. Friend had made up his mind on the main aspect of his Budget proposals. I do not think that either in this Committee or in the public mind generally has there been time for study of the complicated matters which arise in the Commission's Report. These various matters are both complex and interlocking. Many of the suggestions put forward are designed to put right what are considered to be anomalies, but most of those anomalies are so regarded because of comparison with other individual cases.
We often say, "Why should Mr. A in certain circumstances get relief when Mr. B. does not?" of course, if one has an anomaly—what appears to be an unfairness between one citizen and another—one should try to put it right, but in doing so one may find that, unless one deals with the whole situation at the same time, another anomaly is created. I will try to explain why as I go on.
Another point is that the Royal Commission's Report does envisage, together with a number of reliefs of taxation, certain increases of taxation and withdrawal of concessions or allowances that are at present made. I quite understand that it is not within the rules of order


for hon. Members opposite to put down Amendments increasing taxation or withdrawing concessions, but the fact is that we are having to consider this afternoon some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission without others which, in the Report, go together as a single comprehensive whole.
Then, of course, it is true that within the Report of the Royal Commission there is a majority and a minority view on some points, and particularly on the major point of child allowance. I think it is only right that opinion generally should have a chance to weigh up and consider the relative merits of the two points of view.

Mr. Jay: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an area of common ground between the minority and the majority views? They are not completely in contradiction.

Mr. Maudling: But the area of common ground is far from coincident with the ground of the suggestions put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. In fact, I think that so far as the main proposals are concerned the flat rate increase to £100 for child allowance is quite different from either the majority or the minority proposals of the Royal Commission. That does not necessarily mean that it is wrong, but it is not the same thing.
Perhaps I may take the four main points of the Clauses which we are discussing. The first is the question of raising child allowance generally from £85 to £100. I am quite certain that on both sides of the Committee we always feel that when there is money available for relief of taxation those people with children should be among the very first claimants. They are not necessarily a first priority—after all there are the old people and others—but people with large families are among the first claimants. I would not for a moment dispute the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman who, in these matters, has a personal interest numerically greater than mine, and there is a strong case obviously for arguing, as I think the Royal Commission pointed out, that the man with a large family has a considerable claim for greater taxation relief than at present exists relative to the bachelor.
We should however remember that the child allowance has recently been increased. It was £60, it went down to £50 during the war, but has since increased in three steps to £60, £70, £85 and is now at the highest point it has ever been. There has therefore been quite a substantial increase.

Mr. Jay: Perhaps the Economic Secretary would agree that in relation to the changed value of money it is really probably lower today than before the war?

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Maudling: I quite agree, but if we bring in the question of changed value of money we shall get into rather wide fields.
Quite frankly, the main problem in this case is the cost. In a full year it would cost £16 million; £13 million this year and £16 million in a full year. I am referring now to the first Clause, which seeks to raise the allowance from £85 to £100. £16 million in a full year is really a rather large sum, and certainly larger than my right hon. Friend could contemplate at present.
Then there is the question of tapering which is raised in another proposed Clause. That, again, is an interesting proposal and, I think—in theory at any rate—clearly has a very strong argument in its support. It does seem anomalous that if a child's income is £85 there should be a full allowance, but if it reaches £86 the allowance should stop altogether. Nevertheless, I think that the argument put forward is open to the objection that, if fully carried out, it might be found that under this proposal a parent might be getting a tax relief in respect of a child receiving an income large enough to be taxed itself.
But the chief difficulty, frankly, is the administrative difficulty. The whole P.A.Y.E. coding system is based on our being able to assess with a fair degree of certainty before the Income Tax year begins what are the proper Income Tax allowances of the individual. Where one has a definite limit of £85 one can, at the beginning of the year, tell with some certainty whether the child's income will be above or below the limit. Under the tapering proposal it would be difficult to know what would be the right allowance to give to the parent. It would


therefore mean that before the Income Tax year began inquiries would have to be made of the parents concerned by the inspector of taxes as to likely level of a child's income during the year, and at the end of the year there would have to be check-up adjustments.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I quite agree that these administrative difficulties would arise, though we have a lot already in connection with the operation of the child allowance. No inspector can predict whether a child will earn sufficient in the first year of employment to disqualify the parent from receiving the allowance. All that retrospective adjustment has to be made now. I am not suggesting that it is not inconvenient both to the Inland Revenue and to the taxpayer, but the proposal would not introduce such an entirely novel set of difficulties as the hon. Gentleman would appear to suggest.

Mr. Maudling: No, I suggest not that the difficulties would be novel but that they would be more extensive. This would undoubtedly multiply the inquiries to be made. It might involve the employment, I am informed, of another 450 clerks. As our P.A.Y.E. system now works, it would introduce very great complexities and more administrative work. I do not say that that is a final reason why it should not be adopted. I am putting forward some of the practical difficulties which weigh against the immediate acceptance of these proposals. That deals with the tapering proposal.
I come now to the case of the disabled child, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) in a most interesting speech to which I listened with great appreciation. I recognise that here we are dealing with extraordinarily difficult cases, and the hon. Member is right to say that it is unwise to tell parents what they should do—although we often think that we know—with their children. When we come to consider, as my right hon. Friend will consider, the recommendations of the Royal Commission here, quite clearly, is one with a strong claim on our sympathies. However, I would suggest that to accept the recommendation as it stands by itself would give rise to other difficulties, and is an example of what I mean by the interlocking character of some of these matters.
The proposal is that where a child is incapacitated the allowance age should be raised from 16 to 21. The question at once arises—if up to 21, why not beyond? The reason given by the Royal Commission is that beyond that point a parent can, by a settlement, divest himself of part of his income and hand it to his child. That may be true in a number of cases but not in all. There might be many cases where it was not practicable and might not be desirable.
There is also the case of other relatives who are supporting incapacitated children. Suppose an uncle takes over where the parents cannot do it. What about other dependent relatives? By increasing this dependant allowance in the way that hon. Members suggest, would we not create another anomaly as between a dependent relative who is getting £60 and an incapacitated child who is getting £85 up to the age of 21?
I am not putting forward these arguments as reasons for rejecting the hon. Member's main principle. I am pointing out that it is not easy to accept this sort of recommendation immediately without careful consideration of all the other anomalies which may be created or the interlocking factors which may arise.

Mr. Dalton: Would the hon. Gentleman give the cost of this proposal?

Mr. Maudling: The cost of the disabled child concession would be very small. I could not give an accurate figure, but it would be negligible. It would be hard to give an estimate of the cost of tapering; I am told that the figure might be £1 million or £1½ million a year, but it is difficult to estimate. In the case of apprentices, the figure would be pretty small.
The question of apprentices has been raised already in previous years by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), and I listened with great interest to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and the hon. Members for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) and for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher). Obviously, this is a matter on which there is a great deal of feeling on both sides of the Committee. Here again, as in the case of the disabled child, there is a strong claim for our consideration. The proposed new Clause does not go the whole way with the Royal Commission in this matter, because apart


from agreeing with the thesis that the limit should be £85 and not £52, they also wanted to deal with the anomalous situation relating to board and lodgings and the repayment of premiums, which are two matters which I should have thought we should deal with at the same time if we are going to try to deal with the earnings limit.
In the case of apprentices there is also a practical point to which I referred last year and which is related to this question of taper. I am told that nowadays there are few apprentices getting less than £85 a year, so that in practice to increase it from £52 to £85 would not affect many people. But a lot of people do come in the range between £85 and, say, £150. Therefore, clearly there would be strong and reasonable pressure to apply a tapering provision in the case of apprentices.
If we could do this, I think there would be a strong case for doing so. But, as I have explained—and this once again is the interlocking factor coming into play—we cannot see how we could introduce a tapering provision of this kind without great administrative difficulties. The question of helping apprentices—I do not think there is disagreement in principle on this matter—and introducing what hon. Members have in mind is related to all these other different factors that arise in the Report of the Royal Commission. I have tried to explain the attitude of my right hon. Friend to all these matters—

Mr. Nabarro: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of apprentices, may I ask him to bear in mind that all these matters that we are considering are concerned with spending money in the form of giving tax relief, except the matter relating to apprentices, which is a question of earning money by stimulating greater production, and as production is paramount, can my hon. Friend give first consideration to this apprentice matter?

Mr. Maudling: That is just what my right hon. Friend does not want to do. He does not want to give first consideration to any one of these cases because, strong as is the case for this proposal, a strong case exists for the view expressed

by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. My right hon. Friend said in his Second Reading speech that it was not right to pick out any particular recommendation in the Royal Commission Report, because he wants to study the whole Report between now and next year, and he will in the course of that study be assisted by the expressions of opinion from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee on these important matters.

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman has said that there is not a lot involved financially, but would he not agree that between now and next year the parents of many thousands of boys leaving school will have to come to a decision about their future? I should have thought that if it was possible for the Government to accept this proposal they would be making a most important contribution to the labour force which is now undertaking apprenticeship? I should have thought that to wait until next year would canalise many thousands of youngsters out of apprenticeship into, perhaps, unskilled jobs, or jobs which will not give much of a return to this nation.

Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman has a strong argument there, and he has, indeed, advanced very strong arguments on this point before now. My right hon. Friend has weighed them all before coming to his decision, but his general attitude on this question and on these related questions is that he wants to study the Report, and he will study the views of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee before coming to a conclusion as to what should be done about these matters.
In view of the cost of some of the proposals and the essentially interlocking nature of all of them, he does not think that he would be doing right by accepting the recommendations of the Royal Commission this year or by picking out some recommendations in advance of others. He wants to have time for himself and for the country as a whole to study all these matters with the great care that they undoubtedly deserve.

Mr. Dalton: I think this is an exceptionally disappointing answer. This Government may be great in some respects, but it is very weak on the


matter of making concessions—even small concessions which it would be within their power to make. Three new Clauses have been discussed together, and each of them has great merit. They have all been very well presented, and no opposition was put forward to any of them before the Economic Secretary's speech. The case about apprentices was extremely well presented by my hon. Friends the Members for Newton (Mr. Lee) and Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), both of whom spoke with practical knowledge of the matter, and the Economic Secretary admits that the cost would be negligible.

Mr. Maudling: Not for apprentices.

Mr. Dalton: What is the figure for the apprentices proposal then?

Mr. Maudling: I could not give the exact figure, but it would almost inevitably lead to tapering, and with tapering it would cost £1 million or £1½ million.

Mr. Dalton: The hon. Gentleman mentioned a figure, which I will come back to in a minute, for the proposal to increase the child allowance. On the question of the disabled child, he said that the cost would be negligible, and then I interjected and asked what would be the cost of the apprentices proposal and I understood him to say that that would be negligible also. He did go on to make an argument to the effect that it would not—

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I thought my hon. Friend said that it might amount to £1½ million in his original reply on apprentices.

Mr. Dalton: We only want to get the facts. The Treasury Bench have access to these estimates. I thought the figure of £1 million arose on the question of tapering, but this proposal does not involve tapering. The proposal made by my hon. Friends the Members for Newton and Dunbartonshire, East are to raise the figure from £52 to £85.

Mr. Maudling: My point was that, in our view, to accept the apprentices new Clause would inevitably involve tapering, and the cost would be £1½ million. We could not do one without the other.

Mr. Dalton: I will not pursue that last argument. I should have thought that it

was possible to accept the proposals on the Paper as an instalment of reasonable justice. Particularly should it be easy to accept, because the Economic Secretary argued that a number of apprentices would not be much helped by it, and that would further reduce the cost below what it might have been expected to be had it been thought that there was a wider range of applicability. However, when all these estimates have been passed to and fro, it remains true that these are relatively small from the point of view of loss of revenue.
I should have thought that, making all allowance and looking at everything before doing anything—which is obviously a philosophy which can be carried dangerously far—it would have been worthwhile for the Government to have made these two tiny concessions this year. The cost would have been very little. Their acceptance would have created more good will and would have done a little good to a fair number of people. I hope my hon. Friends will express in the Division Lobby their view that these minor concessions might well have been made.
5.30 p.m.
I now pass to the third proposal, which is rather more substantial in terms of finance. This is the proposal to increase the child allowance from £85 to £100. There is a very strong case for this proposal. The noble Lord the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) contributed to our debate on this subject, and I am glad that he has now returned to the Chamber because I want to comment upon one or two things which were said by him. I think it is generally accepted—as the Royal Commission says; and all those Members who have mentioned the subject this afternoon have said it—that there is still far too wide a gap between the tax liabilities of the person without children and those of the person with children, and, increasingly, those of the person with a large family below the earning age.
No one has controverted that statement. The question we have to decide is, what is the most satisfactory way of narrowing that gap? The Royal Commission made certain proposals, including a differential element. It proposed that in certain conditions greater tax relief should be given in respect of the child of the richer man than of the child


Of the poorer man. We reject that proposition. We consider it to be both more just and more simple that every child within the field of applicability of this concession should count for one, and that the relief should in all cases be the same.
We are now discussing only Income Tax. Much might be said in relation to the general thesis put forward by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South—with much of which I would agree—hut Income Tax relief alone cannot be the instrument of narrowing the gap to the extent that many of us would desire, and we are precluded by the rules of order from discussing other methods. The noble Lord did not bring out in his speech the fact that the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) suggests an exactly equal financial benefit for all children, provided their parents are paying some Income Tax—subject to a taper in the marginal zone. It would apply equally to a person earning £1,000 a year as to a Surtax-payer who was receiving many thousands of pounds a year. They would all receive the same advantage.
No injustice would be done to prolific Surtax-payers; they would be entitled to the same advantage as persons at any other level of income, providing that the latter had to pay some Income Tax. That seems just and right. I know there is an argument about the greater cost of education that may be incurred, but that cannot properly be dealt with by way of Income Tax. There may be some other way of dealing with it, but the only way by which we could do it in the field of Income Tax would be to adopt the objectionable principle of giving a larger Income Tax relief in respect of the child of the richer of two taxpayers. We say that this would widen still further the field of inequality which it is our object to narrow.

Although this proposal would cost the Government rather more than the others, it should, nonetheless, be given a very high priority. Although the figure is substantially larger than the cost of certain other tax changes in the Bill, this proposal should have been preferred to some of the matters we were discussing yesterday. The Government have not adopted a very reasonable priority in their concessions, and for that reason, besides the merit of the proposals and the need to narrow the advantage which now exists in favour of the person with no child or few children as against the person with many children, I think we should record our view that this is a most desirable relief, and indicate by our votes that we trust that this matter will be given a very high priority whenever the Chancellor is able to carry further his study of these proposals, none of which he is willing to accept today, but some of which we hope he will accept hereafter.

Dr. King: My right hon. Friend said that he would say something about the proposal in regard to incapacitated children.

Mr. Dalton: I thought that I had covered that. I said that it was a most desirable proposal. I intended to add that it stands on the same page—page 70—of the Royal Commission's Report, and is recommended by the Commission in the same terms as those used by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) in his admirable speech. It stands next door to the proposal with regard to apprentices. In my judgment, both proposals, having the authority of the Royal Commission behind them and costing such small sums of money, are worthy of being adopted forthwith.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 281.

Division No. 179.]
AYES
[5.37 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth


Albu, A. H.
Benson, G.
Brockway, A. F.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Beswick, F.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Bing, G. H. C.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)


Awbery, S. S.
Blackburn, F.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Blenkinsop, A.
Callaghan, L. J.


Balfour, A.
Blyton, W. R.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Boardman, H.
Champion, A. J.


Bartiey, P.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon A. G
Chetwynd, G. R.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Bowden, H. W.
Clunie, J.


Bence, D. R
Bowles, F. G
Coldrick, W.




Collick, P. H.
Janner, B.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Cove, W. G.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Grossman, R. H. S.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Daines, P.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Ross, William


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Royle, C.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Keenan, W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, Harold (Leck)
King, Dr. H. M.
Short, E. W.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Kinley, J.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lawson, G. M.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Deer, G.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Delargy, H. J.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Donnelly, D. L.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Skeffington, A. M.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lewis, Arthur
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Lindgren, G. S.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Edelman, M.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
MacColl, J. E.
Snow, J. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McGhee, H. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McGovern, J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McInnes, J.
Sparks, J. A.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Steele, T.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
McLeavy, F.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Fernyhough, E.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Fienburgh, W.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Finch, H. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Follick, M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Swingler, S. T.


Foot, M. M.
Mallalleu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Forman, J. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mason, Roy
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Gibson, C. W.
Mayhew, C. P.
Thornton, E.


Glanville, James
Mellish, R. J.
Timmons, J.


Gooch, E. G.
Messer, Sir F.
Tomney, F.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C
Mikardo, Ian
Usborne, H. C.


Greenwood, Anthony
Mitchison, G. R.
Viant, S. P.


Grey, C. F.
Monslow, W.
Wade, D. W.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Wallace, H. W.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morley, R.
Warbey, W. N.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Watkins, T. E.


Grimond, J.
Mulley, F. W.
Weitzman, D.


Hale, Leslie
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oldfield, W. H.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Hamilton, W. W.
Oliver, G. H.
West, D. G.


Hannan, W.
Orbach, M.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hardy, E. A.
Oswald, T.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hargreaves, A.
Padley. W. E.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Paget, R. T.
Wigg, George


Hastings, S.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Hayman, F. H.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Willey, F. T.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Williams, David (Neath)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Pannell, Charles
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Herbison, Miss M.
Parkin, B. T.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paton, J.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hobson, C. R.
Pearson, A.
Willis, E. G.


Holman, P.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Holmes, Horace
Popplewell, E.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Holt, A. F.
Porter, G.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Houghton, Douglas
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wyatt, W. L.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Proctor, W. T.
Yates, V. F.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pryde, D. J.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.



Hynd, J B. (Attercliffe)
Rankin, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Reeves, J.
Mr. Wilkins and Mr. John Taylor.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)





NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Baxter, Sir Beverley
Boothby, Sir R. J. G.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Beach, Maj. Hicks
Bossom, Sir A. C.


Alport, C. J. M.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Boyle, Sir Edward


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Braine, B. R.


Arbuthnot, John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bennett, William (Woodside)
Braithwaite, Sir Gurney


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W H


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Birch, Nigel
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)


Baldwin, A. E.
Bishop, F. P.
Brooman-White, R. C.


Barlow, Sir John
Black, C. W
Browne, Jack (Govan)







Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Perkins, Sir Robert


Bullard, D. G.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Horobin, I. M.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Burden, F. F. A.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Pitman, I. J.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewitham, N.)
Pill, Miss E. M.


Campbell, Sir David
Hulbert, Wins Cdr. N. J.
Powell, J. Enoch


Cary, Sir Robert
Hurd, A. R.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Channon, H.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Profumo, J. D.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Iremonger, T. L.
Ramsden, J. E.


Cole, Norman
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Colegate, W. A.
Jennings, Sir Roland
Redmayne, M.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cooper, Son. Ldr. Albert
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Remnant, Hon. p.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Renton, D. L. M.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kaberry, D.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Kerr, H. W.
Robertson, Sir David


Crouch, R. F.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Lambton, Viscount
Robson-Brown, W.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Lancaster, Col. c. G.
Redgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Roper, Sir Harold


Davidson, Viscountess
Leather, E. H. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Deedes, W. F.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Russell, R. S.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lindsay, Martin
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Doughty, C. J. A.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Scott, R. Donald


Drayton, C. B.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Drewe, Sir C.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Shepherd, William


Dugdale, Rt. Hon Sir T (Richmond)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Longden, Gilbert
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Duthie, W. S.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Snadden, W. McN.


Eden, J. P. (Bournemouth, West)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spearman, A. C. M.


Elliott, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Speir, R. M.


Erroll, F. J.
McAdden, S. J.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Finlay, Graeme
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Fisher, Nigel
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R F.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
McKibbin, A. J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Storey, S.


Fort, R.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Foster, John
Maclean, Fitzroy
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Studholme, H. G.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Macleod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Summers, G S.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Galbraith, Rt Hon. T. D (Pollok)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Gammam, L. D.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Teeling, W.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Manningham-Butler, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thomas, Loslie (Canterbury)


Glover, D.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Godber, J. B.
Marples, A. E.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Gough, C. F. H.
Maude, Angus
Tilney, John


Gower, H. R.
Maudling, R.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Turner, H. F. L.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Turton, R. H.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Mellor, Sir John
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Molson, A. H. E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Harden, J. R. E.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, K.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Wall, Major Patrick


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Neave, Airey
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Nicholls, Harmar
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Watkinson, H. A.


Hay, John
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nugent, G- R. H.
Wellwood, W.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nutting, Anthony
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Heath, Edward
Oakshott, H. D.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Odey, G. W.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Wills, G.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)



Holland-Martin, C. J.
Osborne, C
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hollis, M. C.
Page, R. G.
Mr, Vosper and


Hope, Lord John
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Mr. Richard Thompson.

New Clause.—(CHILD ALLOWANCE (APPRENTICES).)

In paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of section two hundred and twelve of the Income Tax Act, 1952, as amended (which relates to relief for a child undergoing training), for the reference "fifty-two pounds a year" there shall be substituted a reference to "eighty-five pounds a year."—[Mr. Gaitskell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 245 Noes, 281.

Division No. 180.]
AYES
[5.48 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Glanville, James
Messer, Sir F.


Albu, A. H.
Gooch, E. G.
Mikardo, Ian


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mitchison, G. R.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Greenwood, Anthony
Monslow, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Grey, C. F.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morley, R.


Balfour, A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Barnes, Rt Hon. A. J.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mulley, F. W.


Bartley, P.
Grimond, J.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hale, Leslie
Oldfield, W. H.


Bence, C. R.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oliver, G. H.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Hamilton, W. W.
Orbach, M.


Benson, G.
Hannah, W.
Oswald, T.


Beswick, F.
Hardy, E. A.
Padley, W. E.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hargreaves, A.
Paget, R. T.


Bing, G. H. C.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Blackburn, F.
Hastings, S.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Blenkinsop, A.
Hayman, F. H.
Palmer, A. M. F,


Blyton, W. R.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Pannell, Charles


Boardman, H.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Pargiter, G. A.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G
Herbison, Miss M.
Parker, J.


Bowden, H. W.
Hewitson, Capt. M
Parkin, B. T.


Bowles, F. G.
Hobson, C. R.
Paton, J.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Holman, P.
Pearson, A.


Brockway, A. F.
Holmes, Horace
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Holt, A. F.
Popplewell, E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Houghton, Douglas
Porter, G.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayshire)
Proctor, W. T.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pryde, D. J. 


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Champion, A. J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Rankin, John


Chetwynd, G. R.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Reeves, J.


Clunie, J.
Janner, B.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Coldrick, W.
Jay, Rt Hon. D. P. T.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Collick, P. H.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Cove, W. G.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Ross, William


Dames, P.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Royle, C.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Keenan, W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
King, Dr. H. M
Short, E. W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kinley, J.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lawson, G. M.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Deer, G.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Delargy, H. J.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Skeffington, A. M.


Donnelly, D. L.
Lewis, Arthur
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lindgren, G. S.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Edelman, M.
MacColl, J. E.
Snow, J. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
McGhee, H. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McGovern, J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McInnes, J.
Sparks, J. A.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Steele, T.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
McLeavy, F.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Fernyhough, E.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Fienburgh, W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stress, Dr. Barnett


Finch, H. J.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Swingler, S. T.


Follick, M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Foot, M. M.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Forman, J. C.
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mason, Roy
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mayhew, C. P.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Gibson, C. W.
Mellish, R. J.
Thornton, E.




Timmons, J.
Wheeldon, W. E.
Willis, E. G.


Tomney, F.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Usborne, H. C.
While, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Viant, S. P.
Wigg, George
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Wade, D. W.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Wyatt, W. L.


Warbey, W. N.
Wilkins, W. A.
Yates, V. F.


Watkins, T. E.
Willey, F. T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Weitzman, D.
Williams, David (Neath)



Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wells, William (Walsall)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Mr. Wallace and Mr. Arthur Allen.


West, D. G.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)





NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Erroll, F. J.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington)
Finlay, Graeme
Lindsay, Martin


Alport, C. J. M.
Fisher, Nigel
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Llewellyn, D. T.


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Arbuthnot, John
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W)
Fort, R.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Foster, John
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Longden, Gilbert


Baldwin, A. E.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Barlow., Sir John
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Gammans, L. D.
McAdden, S. J.


Ball, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Glover, D.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Godber, J. B.
McKibbin, A. J.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Birch, Nigel
Gough, C. F. H.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Bishop, F. P.
Gower, H. R.
Maclean, Fitzroy


Black, C. W.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Ian (Enfield, W.)


Boothby, Sir R. J. G.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt, Hon. J. A
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harden, J. R. E.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Braine, B. R.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Rt.Hn. Sir Reginald


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Harris, Reader (Helton)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Marples, A. E.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maude, Angus


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Hay, John
Maudling, R.


Bullard, D. G.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C


Bullus, Wing Commander, E. E
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Burden, F. F. A.
Heath, Edward
Mellor, Sir John


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Higgs, J. M. C.
Molson, A. H. E.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Campbell, Sir David
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Moore, Sir Thomas


Cary, Sir Robert
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Channon, H.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hollis, M. C.
Neave, Airey


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Hope, Lord John
Nicholls, Harmar


Cole, Norman
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Colegate, W. A.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Horobin, I. M.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nutting, Anthony


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Odey, G. W.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hurd, A. R.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Crouch, R. F.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Osborne, C.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Page, R. G


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Davidson, Viscountess
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Perkins, Sir Robert


Deedes, W. F.
Jennings, Sir Roland
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Pitman, I. J.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Kaberry, D.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Powell, J. Enoch


Drayson, G. B.
Kerr, H. W.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Duncan, Capt. J. A L.
Lambton, Viscount
Profumo, J. D.


Duthie, W. S.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Ramsden, J. E.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Leather, E. H. C.
Rayner, Brig. R


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Redmayne, M







Rees-Davies, W. R.
Speir, R. M.
Turton, R. H.


Remnant, Hon. P.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Renton, D. L. M.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Vane, W. M. F.


Ridsdale, J. E.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Vosper, D. F.


Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Robertson, Sir David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Storey, S.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Robson-Brown, W.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Wall, Major Patrick


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Roper, Sir Harold
Studholme, H. G.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Summers, G. S.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C,


Russell, R. S.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Watkinson, H. A.


Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Wellwood, W.


Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Teeling, W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Scott, R. Donald
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Shepherd, William
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Wills, G.


Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.



Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Tilney, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Snadden, M. McN.
Touche, Sir Gordon
Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. Oakshott.


Spearman, A. C. M.
Turner, H. F. L.

New Clause.—(CHILD ALLOWANCE (IN CAPACITATED CHILD BETWEEN AGES 16 AND 21).)

In subsection (1) of section two hundred and twelve of the Income Tax Act, 1952 (which relates to relief for children), after the words "if over the age of sixteen years at the commencement of that year, is receiving full-time instruction at any university, college, school or other educational establishment," there shall be inserted the words "or who, being over the age of sixteen years, but has not attained the age of twenty-one years at the commencement

of that year is incapacitated by illness, infirmity or disablement from undergoing full-time instruction at any school or other educational establishment or from following any gainful ocoupation."—[Mr. Gaitskell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put: "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 281.

Division No. 181.]
AYES
[6.0 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Albu, A. H.
Daines, P.
Grimond, J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hale, Leslie


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hamilton, W. W.


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hannan, W.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hardy, E. A.


Balfour, A.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hargreaves, A.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Bartley, P.
Deer, G.
Hastings, S.


Bence, C. R.
Delargy, H. J.
Hayman, F. H.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Donnelly D. L.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Benson, G.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Beswick, F.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Herbison, Miss M.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. G.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Bing, G. H. C.
Edelman, M.
Hobson, C. R.


Blackburn, F.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Holman, P.


Blenkinsop, A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Holmes, Horace


Blyton, W. R.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Holt, A. F.


Boardman, H.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Houghton, Douglas


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Bowden, H. W.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Bowles, F. G.
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Fienburgh, W.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Brockway, A. F.
Finch, H. J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Follick, M.
Janner, B.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Foot, M. M.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Forman, J. C.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Callaghan, L. J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Champion, A. J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Chetwynd, G. R
Gibson, C. W.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Clunie, J.
Glanville, James
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Coldrick, W.
Gooch, E. G.
Keenan, W.


Collick, P. H.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C
Key, Rt. Hon: C. W.


Cove, W. G.
Greenwood, Anthony
King, Dr. H. M.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Grey, C. F.
Kinley, J.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lawson, G. M.


Grossman, R. H. S.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)




Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Pargiter, G. A.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Parker, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Lewis, Arthur
Parkin, B. T.
Swingler, S. T.


Lindgren, G. S.
Paton, J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Pearson, A.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Logan, D. G.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


MacColl, J. E.
Popplewell, E.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


McGhee, H. G
Porter, G.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


McGovern, J.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


McInnes, J.
Proctor, W. T.
Thornton, E.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Pryde, D. J.
Timmons, J.


McLeavy, F.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Tomney, F.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Rankin, John
Usborne, H. C


McNell, Rt. Hon. H.
Reeves, J.
Viant, S. P.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling;)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wade, D. W.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Warbey, W. N.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Robens, Rt. Hon A.
Watkins, T. E.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersheid, E.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Weitzman, D.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Manuel, A. C.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Marquand Rt. Hon. H. A.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
West, D. G.


Mason, Roy
Ross, William
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mayhew, C. P.
Royle, C.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Mellish, R. J.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E)


Messer, Sir F.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wigg, George


Mikardo, Ian
Short, E. W.
Wilcock, Group Capt C. A. B.


Mitchison, G. R
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Monslow, W.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Willey, F. T.


Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, David (Neath)


Morley, R.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Skeffington, A. M.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Mulley, F. W.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Willis, E. G.


Oldfield, W. H.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Orbach, M.
Snow, J. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A,


Oswald, T.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wyatt, W. L.


Padley, W. E
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Yates, V. F.


Paget, R. T.
Sparks, J. A.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Steele, T.



Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Palmer, A. M. F.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Mr. Wallace and


Pannell, Charles
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Mr. James Johnson.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Alton, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Campbell, Sir David
Ford, Mrs. Patricia


Alport, C. J. M.
Cary, Sir Robert
Fort, R.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Channon, H.
Foster, John


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Arbuthnot, John
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Cole, Norman
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Colegate, W. A.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Baldwin, A. E.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Gammans, L. D.


Barlow, Sir John
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Cooper-Key, E. M.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G Lloyd


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Glover, D.


Bert, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Godber, J. B.


Boll, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.
Crouch, R. F.
Gough, C. F. H.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Gower, H. R.


Bennett, William (Wood side)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Graham, Sir Fergus


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Birch, Nigel
Davidson, Viscountess
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Bishop, F. P.
Deedes, W. F.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Black, C. W.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Harden, J. R. E.


Boothby, Sir R. J. G.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A
Doughty, C. J. A.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Brains, B. R.
Drayson, G, B.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Drewe, Sir C.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hay, John


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Duthie, W. S.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Heald, Rt. Hon, Sir Lienel


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Heath, Edward


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G T
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Bullard, D. G.
Erroll, F. J.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Bullus, Wing Commander E E
Finlay, Graeme
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Burden, F. F. A.
Fisher, Nigel
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Hirst, Geoffrey







Holland-Martin, C. J
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Hollis, M. C.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Hope, Lord John
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Marples, A. E.
Scott. R. Donald


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Marshall Douglas (Bodmin)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Horobin, I. M.
Maude, Angus
Shepherd, William


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Maudling, R.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Mellor, Sir John
Snadden, W. McN,


Hurd, A. R.
Molson, A. H. E.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Speir, R. M.


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Iremonger, T. L.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Jennings, Sir Roland
Neave, Airey
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nicholls, Harmar
Storey, S.


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Kaberry, D.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Summers, G. S.


Kerby, Capt. H. B
Nutting, Anthony
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Kerr, H. W.
Oakshott, H. D.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Odey, G. W.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Lambton, Viscount
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Teeling, W.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Leather, E. H. C.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Osborne, C.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Page, R. G.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Lindsay, Martin
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Perkins, Sir Robert
Tilney, John


Llewellyn, D. T.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Turner, H. F. L.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Turton, R. H.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pitman, I. J.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Vane, W. M. F.


Longden, Gilbert
Powell, J. Enoch
Vosper, D. F.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. Marylebone)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Profumo, J. D.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Wall, Major Patrick


McAdden, S. J.
Ramsden, J. E.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Rayner, Brig. R
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)



Rees-Davies, W. Ft
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Remnant, Hon. P.
Watkinson, H. A.


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Renton, D. L. M.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


McKibbin, A. J.
Ridsdale, J. E.
Wellwood, W.


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Robertson, Sir David
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Robson-Brown, W.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Wills, G.


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Roper, Sir Harold
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard



Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Russell, R. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D
Mr. Stadbolme and Mr. Redmay[...]re.

New Clause.—(PERSONAL ALLOWANCE— 100 PER CENT. DISABLEMENT.)

The following section shall be added to Part VIII of the Income Tax Act, 1952:—
228A. If the claimant proves that during the whole of the year of assessment—
(a) he has been in receipt of a war disablement pension or an industrial injury pension granted by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and determined by reference to one hundred per cent. disablement, or
(b) though not in receipt of a one hundred per cent, war disablement pension or industrial injury pension he nevertheless is disabled in manner and degree equivalent to one hundred per cent, disablement,
he shall be entitled to a deduction from the amount of income tax with which he is

chargeable equal to tax at the standard rate on one hundred pounds."—[Mr. Willey.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of the Clause is to provide that a person who, during the whole year of the assessment is suffering to the extent of 100 per cent. disablement as a result of a war or industrial injury, shall be entitled to a personal allowance of £100.
We concede that special provision is made by way of tax-free grants in the case of wound and disability pensions to ex-Service men, but those of us who have put down the new Clause believe, as the


Royal Commission believe, that such provisions do not by any means cover the whole field which ought to be covered if real justice is to be done between taxpayers. I concede also that there are administrative difficulties. It would not serve our purpose to deny that. But we believe, as the Royal Commission believe, that the difficulties are not insuperable and that they ought to be faced.
To illustrate the hardship that we have in mind, I will quote a letter that I have received from a disabled person. He writes:
My case is a typical example of this injustice. I am paralysed in the arms and legs and have never been able to walk. Although I pay at least £4 a week for male attendants, there is no statutory allowance for this and only a small compassionate allowance. Consequently, I have to pay the full rate of tax, and have done this since the beginning of the last war, on money which has already been paid out through my infirmity.
We are suggesting a limited concession only in such cases. When I pointed out to my correspondent what we proposed to do by means of the new Clause, he very properly pointed out to me:
… I shall still be under a financial penalty on account of my disablement, because I shall still have to pay tax on money which I have already paid out for attendants and other expenses incurred through my infirmity. As the minimum allowance of Income Tax for me will be £100, but as I usually pay a minimum of £4 a week for male attendants, on this item alone I shall still have to pay tax amounting to almost £50 which I am very sure is unfair because it is penalising me and putting me at a financial disadvantage because of my infirmity, and there must be many like me.
There are many like my correspondent. I would point out that it is only a limited alleviation for which we are pleading.
I shall quote one more case which may have escaped the attention of the Economic Secretary. A letter appeared in the "Sunday Express" a short while ago. In view of the powerful lobby which the Beaverbrook Press exercises on the Government, I should like to quote the letter:
Four years ago in the last week of April at the age of 54 years, I had a leg amputated above the knee. I returned to work on 1st September on crutches. Thus, as now, I had to engage a taxi to take me to and from my work at a cost of £174 4s. in amount. I approached the Inland Revenue about a possible tax rebate and received a courteous reply regretting no rebate was possible.

We always receive a courteous reply, whether the answer is satisfactory or not, because no one can deny that the Chancellor and the other Treasury Ministers possess the Parliamentary quality of courtesy.
6.15 p.m.
There are hundreds of such cases, and I should have thought that the Committee as a whole would have been anxious to take the opportunity of doing something to help such disabled persons. After all, that is the view taken by the Royal Commission, which said:
The taxpayer's own disability is hardly recognised under the existing system. Yet there are many kinds of disability (putting aside age, which is provided for by a special relief) so severe that they modify the whole conditions of a person's life and impose upon him a constant levy of extra expense that may fairly be said to affect the taxable capacity of his Income.
We accept that, and we are trying to support the conclusions reached by the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission faced the practical difficulties and said that there should be some clear definition of disability. We propose in our Clause to accept the recommendation made by the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission had to estimate what a proper allowance would be, and it suggested a figure of not less than £100. After considering the matter, it recommended:
Grave incapacity (comparable to the 100 per cent. disability recognised in the administration of war pensions) should give rise to a claim for a tax allowance, which should be at least £100. This would supersede the anomalous and limited relief that is now available in those cases where an incapacitated taxpayer has an unmarried daughter to look after him.
Surely this is a plain straightforward case on the basis of the examples which I have given, and they could be repeated by the score by my hon. Friends. The Clause has the support of the authority of the Royal Commission. As in the case of the old-age pensioners, the Government will probably say that they must wait. The Government's reply to the case put to the old-age pensioners is that everyone concedes that the old-age pensioners are entitled to a concession, but the Government say, "Let us find some pretext or other and wait."
Surely the Government will not adopt that formula in this case, saying that they want the opportunity of looking at the


whole field in order to ensure that justice is done to all cases. That is not good enough. This case is patent and obvious. It is recognised without reservation or qualification by the Royal Commission. The Committee ought to say quite plainly that this is an injustice which ought not to be tolerated any longer. The Government should recognise that hardship is involved and that they will have to face up to the problem sooner or later and might as well face up to it today.
Let the Economic Secretary tell his officials that he knows very well the patient way in which they examine the whole field of taxation but that this matter has been thrust before him on the initiative of the Opposition and that it affords him an opportunity to make a concession. Without saying more at this stage, I hope the Economic Secretary will indicate that he is willing to accept the new Clause and so remedy the anomaly and put an end to this hardship forthwith.

Mr. John McKay: I have very much pleasure in supporting the proposed Clause.
The Exchequer, when all is said and done, can assume only a given liability. Many calls are made upon it to do something more than has been done in the past, and in every case the question which arises is whether the claim which is being put forward is one which ought to be supported. All sorts of claims are made, and the Exchequer has to balance one against another. This claim ought readily to be received by the Treasury, because it is an attempt to do something more for ex-Service men who are 100 per cent. disabled. Not only that, but it brings in the men in industry who have been injured while at their work, and, by that means, it tends to be equal to all those injured in a similar way.
The question is: is there anything outstanding about these particular claims? Some may ask why should we have a special benefit for men who already have an income from the State in the shape of a pension. Such people argue that instead of these men being worse off than the ordinary man, they are in a much better position. I do not think that that is quite the view that should be taken.
Take the case of an industrial man who has a 100 per cent. disability pension.

What is his position? He may have disablement and other benefits, but we should remember that in all probability if he were in a position to earn he would have on the average £10 a week. Because of his disability his income is reduced to £5 or £4 a week. Even if there is an allowance for the injury and the harm suffered, that does not in any way meet his position and he is far from being as well off as he was before he was injured.
This Clause calls attention to the fact that he has not been fully compensated for the disability sustained. He is in a very much worse economic position than he used to be, and the point we are trying to emphasise is that there are men throughout the country who have a tremendous liability because of incapacity. Most of us will admit that any man, no matter how he may be incapacitated, is under a disability compared with those who do not suffer as he has. Therefore, any of these men who have the grit, determination and courage to go into the labour field with this disability are entitled to special consideration and should be given whatever relief is possible for Income Tax purposes.
The question then rises: how much can the Exchequer give? But there is something in addition to that. There is the question of holding the balance. Which of these particular cases should receive benefit? On this Motion we cannot discuss other cases and the consideration which should attach to other payments and allowances. What we have to do is to ask ourselves whether the Exchequer, despite the number of claims on it, examines the claims that are existing and does justice in the way that it helps the worst kind of case. To my mind, it does not. This Government have not done it, and I would not say that past Governments have done it either. The Exchequer has a responsibility to allocate whatever money can be spared to the most deserving cases, and I think that the class of people we have in mind in this Clause come under that category.
In 1953 the Government decided to place in a specially advantageous position not the aged people in the ordinary sense, but the aged people with about £15,000 in investments who wore getting between £600 and £700 a year from those investments. They were so hard up that they


had to get some extra advantage over and above what they had before. They were allowed another £100 on which they could claim Income Tax deductions.
That is a typical case of the Government stepping out to help a particular class of the community which has behind it thousands of pounds, and which was given the additional advantage of extra relief. The Government have applied some special relief to another section of the community, the companies. The rich companies are given an investment allowance. I know that I am getting out of order, and I must return quickly to the subject under discussion.
We admit that there are administrative difficulties, but if that be so, on the other hand, there are no administrative difficulties for the men in the Armed Forces or for the men receiving disablement benefits under insurance. The chief difficulty is applying this particular Clause to others who have not come under the system of examination and have not been declared 100 per cent. disabled.
All I want to stress is that if this Clause will create administrative difficulties—that is something with which we do not altogether agree—I would appeal to the Government to consider the matter in the light of the need for it. The Government have a discretion. They can overcome the administrative difficulties and extend to these disabled people the relief which we are now advocating.
How much will it cost? How many men are there who are 100 per cent. disabled, either through industrial injury or through the Armed Forces? A good many will not qualify for taxation relief because they do not pay tax at all. So a very big percentage will not be able to claim this relief or the full amount. It is likely, therefore, that this will cost a small amount, and in dealing with these cases let us remember that we are dealing with ex-Service men and men from industry who have given the best of their lives in the service of their country. Now that they are disabled they have a special claim on us all.
We appeal to the Government to try to work the scheme proposed in this new Clause. If the wording is not acceptable then we hope that its principle will be.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: I should like to support the plea which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) for special consideration for this new Clause. If it were one on which the British people could give an opinion, there would be general support for it. What are we seeking to do? We are seeking to give some financial relief to those within our society who are suffering the greatest hardship.
The case has been well put, particularly for the ex-Service men and for the workers coming under the Industrial Injuries Acts. I do not want to cover that ground, but the claim of those born with a disability or of those who have subsequently developed a disability making them almost completely dependent upon others, is one which the hon. Gentleman ought to try to accept here and now.
I know of one or two cases of people born paralysed, people who, from the day they were born up to the present time, are completely dependent upon the kindness, sympathy, tolerance and patience of others. And because of the kindness and sympathy and tolerance shown to them they have overcome a severe physical handicap to a large extent and have fitted themselves to be useful members of our society. Some of them are making a worthwhile contribution to society, but to do so they have to meet expenses which no able-bodied person has to face. One man I know needs a male nurse to attend to him each morning and evening and has to be conveyed from his home to his place of employment. He has to meet the total cost of that.
Let us assume, however, that he had come from a home which had neglected him and that, by the time he had become an adult, he was incapable of following any occupation or of doing anything for himself. In those circumstances, the State would have had the responsibility of providing hospital or nursing treatment, and it would have cost us a lot more to have given what a Welfare State demands shall be given to people in those circumstances than it would cost to meet this Clause.
Therefore, I hope that the Economic Secretary will consider this matter seriously. I hope he will recognise that


the people on whose behalf we are speaking today are entitled to our admiration and consideration because they have refused to lie down under conditions which have broken thousands. These are the people who, with tenacity and willpower, have overcome tremendous physical handicaps. They are the people we need because they are an example to those of us who have been more fortunate.
I hope that the pleas which have been made will not fall upon deaf ears and that the Chancellor will see fit to grant this concession immediately, without waiting for the other reforms which presumably he will bring in as and when he decides to review the Income Tax law in the light of the report quoted in this debate by some hon. Members.

Sir Frederick Messer: I want to devote myself to that part of the proposed Clause to which reference has just been made, namely, paragraph (b)—
though not in receipt of a one hundred per cent. war disablement pension or industrial injury pension he nevertheless is disabled in manner and degree equivalent to one hundred per cent. disablement.
It is already admitted as a principle of taxation that it is the resources available that should be taxed. If we accept that, we must take it into consideration for Income Tax purposes and recognise certain income as being exempt from taxation when it can be shown to be expended in a special way. Nobody will deny that a person handicapped 100 per cent. finds it much more costly to live than does an able-bodied person because he lacks those things which need to be done and for which payment has to be made.
The House itself has recognised that for, in the National Insurance Act, we give to a section of handicapped people 18s. a week more than to the ordinary recipient of National Assistance because of their handicap of being blind. The same is true of those suffering from tuberculosis. We do not want to deal with this in any sentimental or emotional way, but it is easy to stir the emotions when we see the difficulties of some types of cripple.
For instance, a person suffering from hemiplegia always has to be carried about because he cannot walk. Again,

a person suffering from cerebral palsy or with multiple sclerosis gains our sympathy when describing the difficulty of his life. Indeed, looking at these cases we sometimes wonder whether their lives are worth living at all, but we ought to make their struggle to live as easy as possible.
This Clause does not do much more than say, "We recognise that you are not an ordinary individual and that it is not possible for you to live in the way that an ordinary person lives." And those coming within the Income Tax scale are handicapped to a greater extent than those who are living on Public Assistance, because the later are provided with service in addition to the amount of money they receive, and this is denied to those others.
I do not want to make a long speech, but it is obvious that justice demands that we should recognise the position occupied by these people. Already, nature has dealt with them harshly. They have never suffered from an accident, there has been nothing sensational to bring about the conditions under which they live; they have just contracted a disease. Even a disease such as arthritis may be responsible for a man becoming a complete cripple. For these reasons, I hope that the Treasury will recognise that there is a just claim and will accept the proposed Clause.

Mr. Edward Evans: I have spent many years working among handicapped people and I had the privilege not long ago of introducing a deputation to the Financial Secretary on one of the special aspects of disablement in an endavour to elicit his sympathy on the very important matter which is now before the Committee. The disability with which I was concerned was that of blindness. We wanted to put to the right hon. Gentleman the position of those persons who have had the courage to take up professional training and have set up in the professional field for which they were trained. We put to the right hon. Gentleman the cost of being blind and I want to put it now to the Economic Secretary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) has spoken of the position of those who suffer from other disabilities, who cause us such great distress when we meet them face to face and have to live with them. All these


disabilities involve a special cost. A blind lawyer, for example, has considerably higher expenses than has his seeing colleagues. He has to have a reader, an amanuensis and special books, and new legislation must be put into Braille for him. These are additional expenses which should be considered by the Treasury in relation to the proposed new Clause.
I have not the slightest doubt that the Economic Secretary is the most kindhearted person on the Front Bench opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not saying much."] All these disabilities entail an individual charge and it is one of the axioms of welfare services that work is of the finest therapeutic value. There is nothing that makes a man feel that he is as good as his neighbour, although he is deprived of one of his senses, than that he is able to go into the industrial, professional or commercial field and make his contribution on an economic basis. It exalts his spirit and makes him feel that he is as good as the next man. Therefore, I hope that for all these reasons the Economic Secretary will look with sympathy at the new Clause.

Mr. Houghton: I have no doubt that the Economic Secretary has a handful of reasons for doing nothing about this new proposal. Some of the difficulties about it, which no doubt he has in mind, were referred to in the relevant paragraph of the second interim Report of the Royal Commission, upon whose recommendations the new Clause is based. There are here two major problems, one of equity and the other of administration. Apart from both those problems there is always the natural reluctance of any Chancellor to introduce a new form of Income Tax relief, because he is never sure where it will lead him. He looks with special caution upon any new move into the blue. That is why the Chancellor sticks to the well-tried allowances in the Income Tax code. He feels that there is greater safety in them.
The Royal Commission referred to the cautious approach which they felt it necessary to make and they confined their proposals to 100 per cent. disablement. The question arises of those who are 80 per cent. or 60 per cent. disabled. Is there a proportionate expense of a

lower order incurred by those whose disablement is not the full 100 per cent.? We have to admit the limitations of a proposal which is confined to 100 per cent, disablement, freely acknowledge it and experiment with it. I do not think that there is anything which need deter the Chancellor from making an experiment with a new allowance of this kind.
The condition of 100 per cent. disablement is easily ascertainable in the case of those who are drawing disablement pension under the war disabilities scheme or who are in receipt of an industrial injury pension. It is not so easy to decide when the person concerned suffers from a congenital deformity or is a cripple who is not subject to medical assessment for pension purposes. The Royal Commission dealt with the problem of administration. Somebody has to decide whether a claimant is 100 per cent. disabled.

Sir F. Messer: Would not that be done by the tribunal which sits for the purposes of the Disabled Persons Act?

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Houghton: I am quite sure, and I was about to make the point, that notwithstanding that difficulty some authoritative source of medical assessment of disablement could be made available. After all, it has been made available already in other matters which lead to considerably more expenditure of State money than does Income Tax relief.
As for the administration, as long as the Inland Revenue knew what its source of authority was to be, it would be wholly a matter of medical assessment of the degree of disablement and any appeal against the medical assessment would have to be made to the body that was responsible for it and not to the Inland Revenue authorities. In a matter of this kind the Income Tax authorities cannot be the judges of whether the claimant is entitled to relief or not. That evidence must be provided by those who are in a position to do so. If we had that made clear, that duty would not be mixed up with the administration. Inland Revenue officials are many things, but they are not doctors.
Another difficulty which must be borne in mind and frankly faced is the problem of 100 per cent. disablement arising from advancing age. Age relief is already given to the taxpayer when


he or his wife reaches the age of 65. Where age relief is due, earned income relief is given to the relief of unearned income when the taxpayer is getting old. That is a concession to old people who may be living on the yield of investments saved during their lifetime. They are given an income relief which normally applies to pensions.
Here we have the case of an old person who is completely disabled by old age and who claims to be entitled to this relief on the same footing as a younger person who has a physical or mental disablement, which is more clearly recognisable as a disablement than is the process of getting old. The Royal Commission deals with this matter in paragraph 204 of its Report. It suggests that at an advanced age—it may be 75 or 80 and it could be 93 in the case of my father—the 100 per cent. disablement allowance could apply automatically. It is a matter of argument whether it should be done that way.
The alternative would be to enable persons of any age to claim the relief and if those persons became 100 per cent. disabled because of the declining years they could claim it on the same footing as a younger person who was 100 per cent. disabled. That would leave out of the relief the hale and hearty octogenarian, proud of his vigour and vitality, who can do 10 miles a day and who might spurn being regarded as 100 per cent. disabled when, obviously, he is not.
I hope the Economic Secretary will give us a little more comfort on this matter. It seems a little discouraging to have to wait for the Report of the Royal Commission before we can do anything about allowances and then for the Chancellor to say, "I cannot do anything about anything until I can do something about everything." That is a very disappointing doctrine. Here is something on which, apart from all other allowances and reliefs which the Chancellor may have to consider arising out of the Royal Commission's Report, he can make so bold as to meet the wishes of the Committee and, I believe, of the general public, by giving a new allowance. With all its difficulties of administration and other problems it would surely be a worthwhile adventure for an otherwise cautious Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I do not apologise for taking a few minutes of the time of the Committee to say, in the first place, that I do not think there would be any difficulty, medically, in stating whether a case was 100 per cent, disability or not. For war pensions and under the Industrial Injuries Scheme we already have schedules and we know what is meant by 100 per cent. disability.
If any cases cropped up which were doubtful—for instance, disseminated sclerosis—knowing that the medical tribunals are assessing these cases from day to day and are quite used to doing so under guidance from the Ministry, there would be no difficulty in being able to advise the Inland Revenue as to whether a case was 100 per cent. disability or not.
Obviously, people blind in both eyes are disabled 100 per cent. and so are those who are paralysed in both lower limbs—the paraplegic, who has to shuffle his way through life with the aid of crutches or two sticks because his muscles are wasting and he can hardly walk. These are obviously assessed at 100 per cent. disabled.
In so many of these cases it is true that they have expenses of living not normally met with by people who enjoy full activity and vigour or reasonably full activity and vigour. One or two cases have been quoted. I have one in mind in Stoke-on-Trent of a solicitor who, whilst a young officer in the Army, developed a transverse myelitis of the spinal cord. As a result, both lower limbs are completely paralysed, and will be so long as he lives. With the lion-hearted courage of people of his kind—which we should encourage—he qualified as a solicitor, is in active practice, and has been ever since he qualified.
Such people have to have a special house in which to live; they cannot climb up stairs and have to have a bungalow. That is an obvious expense. If they are to have transport, with all the courage they have available they learn to drive a car specially adjusted with special controls; maybe they use a wheel chair. Some of these people have to have special assistance to get into bed, to bathe or to be helped out of a bath, and so on.
We realise that as we are dealing with such a limited number of cases the expense to the Treasury can never be very high. We know the number of people adjudged to be 100 per cent. disabled amongst the war pensioners. That number runs into only a very few thousand, so the Economic Secretary could very well give us a favourable answer.
We hear so much in this House about offering people incentives to strive with all their might to enrich the country, to increase production and to make businessmen keen to develop new markets. Why should we not offer an incentive to people who have shown sufficient courage to be able to live when many of us cannot understand how they can survive at all? I think we have made a reasonable claim for the sympathy of the Economic Secretary.

Dr. H. Morgan: I speak with, for me, unusual modesty and some difficulty on this subject because it is a subject with which I have been living for the last 30 years at least. I want to stress the plea for those industrially disabled. That does not mean that one could not say a great deal about war disabilities of various kinds, either from diseases or wounds. Disabilities from industrial injuries or disease are just a fraction of the difficulty and disability from which these people suffer. It is very much easier in the case of surgical injuries, disablements and ailments. One can always tell that a disabled limb is different from a quite normal limb.
In addition to accidental injuries, disablement of limbs and of different parts of the body we have a whole series of industrial disabilities from diseases. We have only to pick up a list of the diseases now scheduled as due to industry to see the great difficulty of proving which are due to industry or a particular section of industry because of the constant fight put up by the employers when they are either exaggerating disabilities a man bad before he started his job or trying to minimise the disability from which he suffers through disease.
In the course of a year I deal with many cases of lead poisoning and often those cases are dealt with by the best

men, even by men employed by firms like Imperial Chemical Industries. Those doctors work exceptionally well in industrial cases, but I am constantly trying to see that trade unionists get a fair deal. It is not an easy problem medically, although many people talk as if it were a case of looking at a man and saying, "Disabled by industry," or "Not disabled by industry." From a medical point of view it sometimes takes, not days, but at intervals, weeks of repeated examination to come to the conclusion that in a particular case a man is suffering as the result of his work and should receive compensation up to the percentage to which he is entitled.
Sometimes the disability is near 100 per cent. for a certain period whilst for another period it is very much less. People talk of a 100 per cent. pension for disability as if the disability were actually continual and static at the same level all the time. That is not so. A man may be capable of doing certain work on one occasion, but during the next three months he may be quite disabled because of the same sort of disability. We tend to regard these cases as neurotic when they are nothing of the kind.
7.0 p.m.
It is not an easy problem. Doctors are not correctly taught, either on the surgical or the medical side, with regard to industrial disability. I only wish that every trade union had its medical officer and that every school had a proper department to instruct the students on mental and surgical disabilities in industry. It is difficult to tell a lay audience about these things. It is difficult to decide whether the present condition of a man Jesuits from his work or if it is a recrudescence of something from which he suffered before starting his present employment. We need much more research and study in connection with these problems. We should ensure that these cases are treated as illustrative of a particular form of disability resulting from a man's occupation and the risks which he may run in carrying it out.
I know that certain doctors employed by insurance companies tend to regard a man with prejudice as soon as he comes to be examined. They consider that he is trying to "put it on," when the man is doing nothing of the kind. The man


may be frightened by the strange circumstances in which he finds himself, although he is anxious to justify his case and to prove that he is not normal. I hope that the Home Office, or whichever Department deals with these matters, will take these facts into consideration so that justice may be done to these men.
I could quote case after case where, after careful examination, I have given an opinion, and said that the case must be fought. But afterwards I have felt that I might have been wrong. These kind of cases are special cases which the authorities should see are properly handled by the medical schools, by the hospitals and by everyone involved. I am sorry if I have not explained myself properly, but it is difficult to do so with the clarity that one would desire. I am satisfied, or at any rate I think, that the men are receiving increasing justice, and that we do not now experience the rank injustices which occurred at one time.

Mr. Gaitskell: I wish to support my hon. Friends who have spoken in favour of this new Clause in a series of excellent speeches which were well informed and extremely convincing. I hope that the Economic Secretary will not say that he can do nothing about this, because it is one of a number of proposals in the Royal Commission's Report, and that he cannot do anything about any of those proposals. At an earlier stage he implied that that was the attitude which the Government took on the matter. I hope that I have misunderstood him, because I think it a very unreasonable attitude to adopt.
One could understand, where there were special complications—special inter-lockings as the hon. Member put it—that some care was necessary before committing oneself to a particular measure. But to say off-hand that you will reject completely all these proposals, whatever they may be, is quite unsatisfactory. Of all the proposals we are putting forward, and which happen to coincide with the Report of the Royal Commission. I think that this one will command the greatest amount of support, both in this Committee and in the country generally. I ask, therefore, that the Economic Secretary should give it very special attention.
I may say that even had it not been included in the Report of the Royal Commission, there is good reason to

suppose that we should have put forward something of this kind, because there is a growing feeling that the present arrangements about taxation in relation to disability are most unsatisfactory. The case has been very well argued already, and I do not propose to detain the Committee by repeating what has been said by others far better than I can say it. But I think that the Royal Commission itself summed up the position extremely well in paragraph 203 of its Report, where it states:
Yet there are many kinds of disability (putting aside age, which is provided for by a special relief) so severe that they modify the whole conditions of a person's life and impose upon him a constant levy of extra expense that may fairly be said to affect the taxable capacity of his income.
I think that that exactly sums up the case for this proposed new Clause.
As I said earlier, the law relating to tax allowances for disability is not satisfactory. It is not true to say that no provision whatever is made. There is a provision, which we discussed last year, by which, if an infirm or aged person is maintained by a daughter, there is granted an allowance of £40. I think that sum was increased from £25 to £40 last year.

Mr. Fernyhough: I understand that in the case of these disabled people the Commissioners have a discretion. They can make a compensating allowance. But that is not a statutory right, and, therefore, identical cases do not necessarily receive identical treatment.

Mr. Gaitskell: My hon. Friend has made a valuable contribution to my general argument, that the law as it stands is not satisfactory and cannot be left as it is. As the Royal Commission pointed out, there is no particular reason why an allowance should be granted statutorily in respect of the case where an infirm person is looked after by a daughter, and not granted in other cases where there does not happen to be a daughter. That being so, the Treasury must face the problem and try to find a solution.
We have adopted in the new Clause the solution proposed by the Royal Commission. I need not say anything more about that. Admittedly, there are weaknesses in it. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) pointed out, with others, the difficulties of drawing the


line at the 100 per cent. disability, but most hon. Members would agree that that disability is much the worst. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby and the Royal Commission say this is surely an instance where it would be wise to experiment by granting allowance in these cases.
What are the possible objections? First, we must ask whether it will cost a great deal. I cannot suppose that the cost is a serious objection. I am glad to see that the Economic Secretary shakes his head, I think to agree that it is not a serious objection. Indeed, it could fairly be said that one of the limitations of the new Clause is that there are bound to be a great many disabled persons who would not be paying any Income Tax at all or would be paying at a very low rate, and, therefore, would not get a great deal out of it. That is no answer to the proposition that when they pay tax they should get the relief. It does, however, suggest that the cost will not be at all serious.
Then, is it the administrative difficulty? I can well understand that, as so often happens, the official brief will point out all the administrative complications, but I must say that I was impressed by what my hon. Friends argued on this subject. Here we have, so to speak, a ready made method by which we can test whether a person will be entitled to the allowance. We have the medical tribunals already in existence. They are doing the work all the time in connection with industrial injuries or war pensions. I cannot see that there is any special difficulty about extending their range to cover these persons—as is implied by paragraph (b) of the new Clause—who do not happen to be receiving either a war pension or an industrial injuries pension. Therefore, I cannot see that there should be any special administrative difficulty. For the moment, I cannot think of any other possible objection.
I hope that the Economic Secretary will be able to give us a favourable answer. The Treasury, in this Finance Bill, has been extremely rigid and obstinate and unwilling to make any concessions at all. I think that the most that we have had is a few vague promises that possibly something might be looked at on Report. Indeed, now I come to think of it, the only significant concession

that has been made was the one made yesterday by the Financial Secretary to his own back benchers in respect of Estate Duty. That certainly gives away quite a lot of money on grounds that I should say are wholly unjustifiable.
I must say to the Chancellor and the Economic Secretary that some of us feel that it is most unsatisfactory that the Government should make concessions to people who are already extremely well off but be quite unwilling to relieve hardship in the way in which it is proposed to be relieved by the new Clause. I am very glad to support it and I hope that we shall now have a favourabe answer from the Government.

Mr. Maudling: The subject of disability is one which this Committee would always treat with very great and very special interest and care. There is obviously no denying the arguments that people who suffer from 100 per cent. disablement are entitled to receive special consideration and assistance from the Government. What we must consider is what is the best form for that assistance to take.
Up till now I think it is right to say that successive Governments have taken the view that it is better to assist the 100 per cent. disabled through direct payments rather than through tax remissions. It has always been the practice of Governments to give to the 100 per cent. disabled direct payments which are free from tax. Unlike many other allowances under the National Insurance system, such as family allowances which are subject to tax, the disability allowances are tax-free.
The principle which has been followed by successive Governments is that the best way of meeting the manifold circumstances of extensive disability in individual cases is by direct tax-free benefit from the State rather than by tax remission. In the case of tax remission it is clear that only those people who pay tax get the benefit of it and the higher a person's income the greater the benefit he gets because he is paying tax at a higher rate.
7.15 p.m.
Therefore, in so far as the State recognises and carries out its obligation to assist these people, we consider that the better way of doing it is by way of direct


assistance. I think that it is on this ground that, for example, the previous Government did not feel that they could accept in previous years the plea made for a constant attendant allowance—a matter which has often interested both sides of the Committee. It was for that reason that the previous Administration felt that these matters should be dealt with by direct payment rather than by tax remission.
The Royal Commission, in its Report, quite clearly gave its opinion that there should be alternatives. Either we should have a tax remission or we should have direct tax-free payments, but we should not have both. I think, at first sight, that there is a good deal to be said for that point of view. That is not the proposition in this proposal. I understand that owing to the rules of order it could not be brought forward, because one cannot propose to take away from people concessions which they have at present. However, it is very much worth considering whether the right way of dealing with the problem should or should not be, if we are to give a tax concession, that we should at the same time make a rule that people cannot draw both the tax concession and tax-free disability relief.
Then, of course, there is the question of the services of a daughter—the allowance of £40 for a daughter assisting an old or infirm taxpayer. Although the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) did not mention it, I think that the Royal Commission recommended that that should be withdrawn. I am not sure that that would be the right thing to do, but it must be considered with the other proposals.
Then there is the question of the taxpayer over 75 years of age, to whom the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) referred. There is the interesting suggestion that people over 75 should automatically be given the entitlement to this new relief as an alternative to the age relief.
Those are all suggestions which have been put forward by the Royal Commission and they are worthy of very careful consideration before we come to a conclusion on these matters. It is true, also, as has been suggested by several hon. Members in their speeches, that in

many ways the proposal would not cover the whole field. It covers the position of a taxpayer who is himself 100 per cent. disabled, but there is a strong claim to come from the taxpayer whose wife is 100 per cent. disabled. There is the question of 90 per cent. or 80 per cent. disability.
One or two hon. Members anticipated that I would raise the point of administrative difficulty which the Royal Commission mentioned. There is undoubtedly a difficulty there, but I am prepared to agree that it is not insuperable, though it would be considerably increased if we brought in not only the 100 per cent. but the 90 per cent, or the 80 per cent. disability.
It is my impression, particularly from what I have heard from my own constituents, including the British Legion in my constituency, that there is a feeling among many people that while a good deal has been done by successive Governments for the 100 per cent. disabled people, those on a lower degree of disablement tend to be overlooked and their claims are not properly attended to. I cannot help feeling that there is a case for thinking that, if anything of this kind is to be done, we should consider whether we could not bring in also the people at a lower disablement than 100 per cent.
I have introduced all these considerations to show why, in our opinion, we do not think it would be right now to proceed with this proposal.

Mr, Fernyhough: The hon. Gentleman has referred to people who are actually getting monetary benefit from the State. He has not dealt with the people who are born with an incapacity or who subsequently develop an incapacity and who receive no benefit from the State.

Mr. Maudling: I agree that there is a case for doing something there. It is very strong, but I should have thought that the argument holds good that it is better to try to extend direct benefits from the State rather than to extend tax concessions which benefit less the people at the lower range of income.
This new Clause commends itself to the sympathies of hon. Members. There is always the feeling that whenever the State can provide additional assistance to any citizens, the disabled, and particularly the 100 per cent. disabled, have one


of the strongest claims of all. That my right hon. Friend will continue to bear in mind.
But I say once again that I think we should consider seriously whether it is not better, in principle, to continue to give and extend, and, as soon as possible, increase, direct tax-free payments rather than introduce a new principle of a tax remission, which would only help that limited class of people concerned who are taxpayers.

Sir F. Messer: That would not benefit the people who do not receive these payments.

Mr. Maudling: I had that in mind when I said "extend" as well as "increase."

Mr. Jay: Do we understand the Economic Secretary to be giving any promise or undertaking that the Government have such proposals for increased expenditure in mind?

Mr. Maudling: I had not come to my final words.
I was going to say that along with the other points which we have discussed earlier this afternoon, this is a matter which my right hon. Friend intends to consider in the course of the next year. He also, as I have said on many occasions, will have in mind continuously the case, not only of the old age pensioner, but also of the disability pensioner. It would be right for my right hon. Friend to link in his consideration both disability pensions and the possibility of tax allowances for the disabled. In those circumstances, my right hon. Friend, though certainly sympathetic with many of the views advanced with such sincerity and force by hon. Members, does not feel, for the reasons I have tried to explain, that he can at this time accept this proposal.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: I have listened with great interest to the debate, as the Committee will appreciate, since for three years I held the office of Minister of Pensions and had a great deal of experience in the administration of 100 per cent. disability pensions and the like.
At the end of my three years, I left that office very strongly of opinion that

many of the hardest cases which had ever come to my attention were those not of people who had received a 100 per cent. war pension, but of those who had received a war pension at a lower rate of assessment but were, nevertheless, 100 per cent. disabled. Among such men will be found very many examples of severe hardship and great human suffering.
It so happened by a strange coincidence that I received only this morning from the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance a letter relating to a constituent of mine. I shall not go into the whole story, but here is a man—a man with one eye, as it happens—who was called up for war service and who left the service in a state in which he was almost unable to work. He received a 60 per cent. pension in respect of a condition which was recognised as being aggravated by, but not attributable to, war service.
Subsequently that condition deteriorated, and the man is now admitted by all his medical attenders to be completely unfit for work. His pension, however, is only 60 per cent. He does get an unemployability supplement. If his pension were less than 50 per cent., he would not get even that. But because he is only 60 per cent. war disabled, though 100 per cent. physically disabled, he cannot get the constant attendant allowance; he cannot get the comforts allowance. When his wife had to give up her work, making some pitiful little earnings by charring and that kind of thing, to look after him, he is ineligible for the constant attendant allowance, too, because he is not technically 100 per cent. war disabled.
That sort of case is extremely hard indeed. My constituent would not benefit by any concession under Income Tax, because the whole of his income consists of tax-free allowances. Even if it were not tax-free, it is such a small weekly sum that I dare say he would not pay tax even under the ordinary arrangement. The point I wanted to make is that if at some future date—we have no guarantee whatever about it—any improvement is to be made in the present war pensions system, it is particularly necessary in that direction. That is why I was glad to see on the Order Paper that the proposed new Clause provided for tax


relief not only to those in receipt of 100 per cent. war pension or 100 per cent. industrial injuries grant, but also to those who are, in fact, 100 per cent. disabled.
We have listened with some interest, without surprise, and with considerable regret, to the Economic Secretary telling as how difficult all this is. We have heard him say that he appreciates the problem and that he is sympathetic, but that there are all kinds of difficulties in the way of doing what we ask. At the same time,

he has indicated that possibly, some time in the future, his right hon. Friend may consider doing something to increase war pensions. We on this side have considered it, and we know perfectly well what we would do: we would increase them here and now. Therefore, we shall indicate in the Division Lobby our disappointment with this reply.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 280.

Division No. 182.]
AYES
[7.26 p.m.


Adams, Richard
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Albu, A. H.
Follick, M.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Foot, M. M.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Forman, J. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Awbery, S. S.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Baird, J.
Gibson, C. W.
Manuel, A. C.


Balfour, A.
Glanville, James
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Gooch, E. G.
Mason, Roy


Bartley, P.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mayhew, C. P.


Bence, C. R.
Grey, C. F.
Mellish, R. J.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Messer, Sir F.


Benson, G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mikardo, Ian


Beswick, F.
Grimond, J.
Mitchison, G. R.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hale, Leslie
Monslow, W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Blackburn, F.
Hamilton, W. W.
Morley, R.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hannan, W.
Mulley, F. W.


Blyton, W. R.
Hardy, E. A.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Boardman, H.
Hargreaves, A.
Oldfield, W. H.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Oliver, G. H.


Bowden, H. W.
Hastings, S.
Orbach, M.


Bowles, F. G.
Hayman, F. H.
Oswald, T.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Padley, W. E.


Brockway, A. F.
Herbison, Miss M.
Paget, R. T.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hobson, C. R.
Paring, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Holman, P.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Holt, A. F.
Pannell, Charles


Callaghan, L. J.
Houghton, Douglas
Pargiter, G. A.


Champion, A. J.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Parker, J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Paton, J.


Clunie, J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, A.


Coldrick, W.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Collick, P. H.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Popplewell, E.


Cove, W. G.
Isaacs, Rt Hon. G. A.
Porter, G.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Janner, B.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jay, Rt. Hon D. P. T
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Proctor, W. T.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Pryde, D. J.


Daines, P.
Jenkins, R. H (Stechford)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rankin, John


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Reeves, J.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Keenan, W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Kenyon, C.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Deer, G.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Delargy, H. J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Dodds, N. N.
Kinley, J.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Donnelly, D. L.
Lawson, G. M.
Ross, William


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Royle, C.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Edelman, M.
Lewis, Arthur
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Lindgren, G. S.
Short, E. W


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Edwards, w. J. (Stepney)
Logan, D. G.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacColl, J. E.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
McGhee, H. G.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
McGovern, J.
Skeffington, A. M.


Fernyhough, E.
McInnes, J.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Fienburgh, W.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Finch, H. J.
McLeavy, F.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)




Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Wilcock, Group Capt C A. B


Snow, J. W.
Thornton, E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Sorensen, R. W.
Timmons, J.
Willey, F. T.


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Tomney, F.
Williams, David (Neath)


Sparks, J. A.
Usborne, H. C.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Steels, T.
Viant, S. P.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Wade, D. W.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Warbey, W. N
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Stross, Dr. Barnett
Watkins, T. E.
Willis, E. G.


Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Weitzman, D.
Wilton, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Swingler, S. T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Sylvester, G. O.
Wells, William (Walsall)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wheeldon, W. E.
Wyatt, W. L.


Taylor, John (West Lothian)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Yates, V. F.


Taylor, Rt. Hen. Robert (Morpeth)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)



Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Wigg, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Wallace and Mr. Holmes.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Drayson, G. B.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W


Alport, C. J. M.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Kaberry, D.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Duthie, W. S.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Kerr, H. W.


Arbuthnot, John
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lambert, Hon. G.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lambton, Viscount


Aster, Hon. J. J.
Erroll, F. J.
Lancaster, Col. C. G


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Finlay, Graeme
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Baldwin, A. E.
Fisher, Nigel
Leather, E. H. C.


Barber, Anthony
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Barlow, Sir John
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Lindsay, Martin


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Fort, R.
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Bell, Phillip (Bolton, E.)
Foster, John
Llewellyn, D. T.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Longden, Gilbert


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Gammans, L. D.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Birch, Nigel
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Bishop, F. P.
Glover, D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Black, C. W.
Godber, J. B.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Boothby, Sir R. J. G.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
McAdden, S. J.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Gough, C. F. H.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Gower, H. R.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Boyle, Sir Edward
Graham, Sir Fergus
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Braine, B. R.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
McKibbin, A. J.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Harden, J. R. E.
Maclean, Fitzroy


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bullard, O. G.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Burden, F. F. A.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Manningham-Buller, Rt.Hn. Sir Reginald


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hay, John
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Campbell, Sir David
Heald, Rt. Hen. Sir Lionel
Marples, A. E.


Cary, Sir Robert
Heath, Edward
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Channon, H.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Maude, Angus


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Maudlins, R.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
May den, LI.-Comdr. S. L. C


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Cole, Norman
Hirst, Geoffrey
Mellor, Sir John


Colegate, W. A.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Molson, A. H. E.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hollis, M. C.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hope, Lord John
Moore, Sir Thomas


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Horobin, I. M.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Neave, Airey


Crouch, R. F.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Nicholls, Harmar


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Nortnwood)
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hurd, A. R.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Davidson, Viscountess
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Nutting, Anthony


Deedes, W. F.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Oakshott, H. D.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Odey, G. W.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Iremonger, T. L.
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Jennings, Sir Roland
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)







Osborne, C.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Thorneycroft, Rt.Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Page, R. G.
Schofield, Lt.-Cot. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Scott, R. Donald
Tilney, John


Perkins, Sir Robert
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Shepherd, William
Turner, H. F. L.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Turton, R. H.


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Pitman, I. J.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Vane, W. M. F.


Pitt, Miss E. M.
Snadden, W. McN.
Vosper, D. F.


Powell, J. Enoch
Spearman, A. C. M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Prior, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Speir, R. M.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Prior-Palmer, Brig, O. L.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Profumo, J. D.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Wall, Major Patrick


Raikes, Sir Victor
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Ramsden, J. E.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Rayner, Brig. R.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Watkinson, H. A.


Remnant, Hon. P.
Storey, S.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Renton, D. L. M.
Strause, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Wellwood, W.


Ridsdale, J. E.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Studholme, H. G.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Robertson, Sir David
Summers, G. S.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Robson-Brown, W.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wills, G.


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Roper, Sir Harold
Teeling, W.



Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thomas, Rt. Hon, J. P. L. (Hereford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Russell, R. S.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Sir Cedric Drewe and


Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Mr. Redmayne.


Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Thompson Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

The Temporary Chairman (Major W. J. Anstruther-Gray): Mr. Black.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: On a point of order. I was wondering whether the next new Clause on the Order Paper—(Reduction of duty on hydrocarbon oils)—which stands in my name has either been accidentally overlooked, or whether it has been decided officially by the Chair that it is not to be called.

The Temporary Chairman: That was no accident; it was deliberately not selected.

New Clause.—(RELIEF FOR ACCOUNTANCY EXPENSES.)

(1) Where—
(a) on or after the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, an individual, otherwise than for the purpose of a trade carried on by him pays any fees or incurs any expense in connection with the preparation by an accountant of any statement, claim, list or declaration required by or for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts; and
(b) those fees or expenses would, if they had been paid or incurred for the purpose of a trade have been allowable as a deduction in estimating the profits or gains thereof
there shall be made to him for the year of assessment in which those expenses were paid or incurred an allowance equal to the amount thereof.

(2) An allowance shall be made by way of discharge or repayment of tax.

(3) In this section "accountant" means a person who has been admitted a member of an incorporated society of accountants.

(4) The provisions of the Income Tax Acts relating to appeals against assessment to income tax including the provision relating to the statement of a case for the opinion of the High Court on a point of law, shall with any necessary modification apply to any claim for an allowance under this section.—[Mr. Black.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Cyril W. Black: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of the new Clause is to rectify what I hope I can satisfy the Committee is an anomaly in the existing Income Tax law. Before coming to the main point that I want to develop, however, there are two preliminary submissions that I would make to the Committee.
The first is that the complexity of the Income Tax law nowadays necessitates the employment of qualified accountants in preparing Income Tax returns, except in the simplest and most straightforward cases. I do not think I need spend any time in developing that proposition, because all hon. Members who have become familiar with the Committee stage of a Finance Bill will realise the immense complexity which now surrounds the whole question of the liability of the citizen for Income Tax.
The second submission that I would make is that the employment of qualified accountants is alike advantageous to the Inland Revenue authorities as it is to the individual taxpayer, because it is quite clear that, where qualified accountants


are employed in the preparation of Income Tax returns, the Inland Revenue Department is saved a great deal of work, because the returns are much more likely to be accurate and in a satisfactory form than if they are prepared by the taxpayer by his own unaided efforts. Furthermore, they are much more likely to be correct and in accordance with the law having been prepared by experts, and, therefore, there is less possibility of the Inland Revenue failing to receive the tax which is properly due from the individual taxpayer.
I now want to make clear to the Committee how the anomaly in the existing law arises and operates. It is a fact that, in the case of limited companies, both trading companies and investment companies, accountancy fees in connection with the preparation of tax returns are allowed as permissible expenses for tax purposes. The same allowance is made in the case of an individual carrying on a business in his own name or in partnership with other individuals.
The one exception to the general rule arises in the case of an individual dealing with his own personal tax affairs, including his investment income, which may, and in some cases clearly does, involve complicated taxation questions in respect of which the expert advice of qualified accountants is absolutely essential. Perhaps I may take one illustration to make clear the kind of case that I have in mind. I am deliberately taking an illustration of rather an extreme kind to show to the Committee the point I am trying to make.
Take the case of a great landed estate such as the Westminster Estate, the Portman Estate, or the Howard de Walden Estate, comprising hundreds if not thousands of properties where very complicated tax problems arise in connection with repairs and in respect of which the employment of qualified accountants to prepare the Income Tax returns is absolutely essential. The anomaly is that if the estate belongs to an individual and is held by him in his own name he can secure no tax relief in respect of accountancy expenses in dealing with the taxation matters relating to the estate. If his affairs are so arranged that his estate belongs to a limited company and he owns the whole of the shares, that company is in a position to obtain tax relief

in respect of the accountancy fees involved in the preparation of the Income Tax returns.
There can in logic and reason be no case whatever for differentiating in the treatment, according to whether the individual owns his estate direct and in his own name, or whether he owns it indirectly through the ownership of the whole of the shares of a limited company which, in turn owns the landed estate. The illustration makes clear the nature of the injustice, which affects many people, small taxpayers as well as large.
The Economic Secretary cannot possibly resist making the concession on the ground that a very large amount of revenue would be lost by so doing. I do not know whether he can give us any estimate of the revenue loss by admitting accountants' fees for the preparation of Income Tax returns in the circumstances I have mentioned, but in the nature of the case it can be only a very small amount indeed. The acceptance of the Clause cannot be resisted on that ground, while the case in equity and logic for making this small concession is overwhelming.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Maudling: My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) has urged this proposition with persistence and, as usual, with eloquence, but I cannot find myself persuaded by his arguments—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—any more than I can by arguments sometimes advanced from the other side of the Committee. I agree that the cost of making the concession is not very substantial. It is not for any such reason that I resist it. I agree that there is an appearance of anomaly here, but I cannot agree that there is injustice.
My hon. Friend is quite right in saying that, in practice, accountancy expenses incurred by a company in preparing Income Tax returns are allowed as a deduction, but that arises because a trader is entitled to deduct for Income Tax purposes any expenses incurred for purposes of his trade, and they normally include accountancy expenses. In practice, it is impossible to distinguish between normal accountancy expenses and accountancy work done in preparing a statement of tax liability. If my hon. Friend will consult a judgment given by Lord Porter in 1950.
he will see set out in very clear language these words:
It is true that as a matter of convenience the cost of making up accounts for the Inland Revenue is allowed by the authorities as a deduction from profits, as is the cost of making up the strictly business accounts of the trade, but this is not a matter of principle but of expediency. The two duties overlap and in practice are almost indivisible.
That statement puts with great clarity the reason why this apparent anomaly exists. Any individual, says my hon. Friend, who employs an accountant to assist him should be able to deduct similarly the expenses of employing that accountant from his assessment for Income Tax purposes. I find that a very difficult principle to accept. The taxpayer is carrying out a statutory liability imposed upon him equally with all other citizens. If he chooses to employ expert assistance in doing so, I do not think that any substantial claim can be made for giving him a special tax allowance. This is a matter of principle, and it is difficult to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion.
I would, however, observe that this matter, or something akin to it, arose in the first Millard Tucker Committee's Report. Since then, the Royal Commission has been deliberating, and it is possible—although I do not know—that in the course of its final Report it may have something to say on the question of tax relief on expenses incurred in litigation against the Inland Revenue authorities. There may then be a case for saying that we should make some allowance for accountancy expenses incurred in preparing for litigation. That is only hypothetical. If the Royal Commission should have anything to say, my right hon. Friend will examine it with great care. Beyond that, I cannot regard the case made by my hon. Friend, however eloquent and persistent his argument, as one that I can accept on principle. Therefore, I must advise the Committee to reject the proposed new Clause.

Mr. Nabarro: I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary a question. He said that it was a matter of principle whether an individual should be permitted to have the cost of preparation of his taxation papers assessed as a charge for computing his liability to Income Tax and other forms of direct taxation. According to the Economic Secretary there is a statutory liability

upon an individual to prepare his tax returns whereas there is evidently a different state of affairs with respect to a company.
Surely the position is exactly the same. A company has a statutory liability to prepare its accounts and to submit them for assessment to taxation. An individual has the same liability. If the cost of preparation of a company's accounts is admissible as a charge for the purpose of computing the company's liability to tax, the same principle should be applied in the case of an individual.
I do not wish to argue this point in detail. I would merely ask the Economic Secretary whether, as there is a sound case for the new Clause which my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) has put forward, he would be prepared to submit this specific point to the Royal Commission for further consideration. There should be equity as between the cost to the individual of carrying out his statutory liability, and that of a company in complying with its statutory liability.
If the principle applies to the one, then the same principle should apply to the other. I think, therefore, that the matter might be looked at again by the Royal Commission, and I ask my hon. Friend whether he would be prepared to put this specific point which. I would remind him, has come up on successive Finance Bills since the war, to the Royal Commission for further consideration.

Mr. Anthony Crosland: I very much hope that the Economic Secretary will not accede to that suggestion. For one thing, it would be an action of an extremely exceptional character if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to direct the members of the Royal Commission to apply their minds to a particular small point of tax reform. That is something which has not been done since the Royal Commission was set up, and I hope that the precedent will not be set at all, and certainly not in a case like this.
The Economic Secretary opposed the Clause not on grounds of principle, but on grounds of administrative convenience. He quoted the judgment to which he referred to show that it would be difficult to differentiate between the


work of the accountant in preparing tax figures and the work which he did for the company in other directions. That was the basis of the judgment which he quoted.

Mr. Nabarro: If that argument were correct, then the ordinary audit of a company's accounts must be associated in the mind of the hon. Gentleman with litigation. In fact, the two are not connected.

Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman really must take up this with Lord Porter and not with me, because I am merely basing myself on the perfectly clear and well-known judgment to which the Economic Secretary referred.
This new Clause, of course, must be seen as part of this year's Tory campaign on behalf of the accountancy profession. We had the most extraordinary encomium last night of accountants by the hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts), and, indeed, a definition of Toryism by the practice of going to the cleverest accountant in order to get off paying the maximum amount of tax. It is interesting to see a further effort being made on their behalf in this new Clause.
Even if there were none of the difficulties to which the Economic Secretary referred, I see no case for the Clause. It was moved by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) on the ground that at present there is a differentiation between an individual and a company. That, of course, is true. But there are all sorts of differentiations between individuals and companies. After all, individuals are subject to Surtax and companies are not. This differentiation between an individual and a company goes right through our taxation law, and is not confined to the minor matter of accountancy expenses.
It may be that certain people experience the difficulties to which the hon. Member for Wimbledon referred. He talked in heart-breaking terms about the difficulties which the Westminster Company might have in making out its Income Tax return, but we must surely retain a sense of proportion in the matter. Why should the Revenue help companies to minimise their tax liability in this way? The hon. Member for Wimbledon said the Revenue would gain from it. That is

an extraordinary opinion. I should have thought that the whole idea of going to an accountant was in order to minimise one's liability to tax. I cannot see that the Revenue would gain in the way of receipts by making this concession because then far more people than now would have their affairs looked after by an accountant.
I can see no justification for the Clause, and I am sorry that it should have been pressed so strongly and so enthusiastically immediately after we have had from the benches opposite such a lack of enthusiasm for the two or three previous new Clauses. I can only say that I think that this represents part of the general campaign of the Tories and of a party of business men on behalf of the accountants.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Far be it from me to intervene in this contest between the accountants, on the one hand, and the economists on the other, but it has been said on both sides that there is at the moment a difference of practice in this matter as between individuals and limited companies which amounts to an anomaly.
I am not aware of any difference of practice. If an individual is in business, if he carries on a trade or a profession, and if he is wise enough and prudent enought to employ an accountant to deal with his accounts year by year, then his accountancy charges are an allowable deduction for Income Tax purposes. He does not have to be a limited company in order to claim them. Just as in the case of the limited company, if his accountant prepares his Income Tax returns and is paid a fee for doing so as part of his general accountancy fees for what is done, then those fees, as well as those of a limited company, are eligible for Income Tax deduction.

Mr. Black: A limited company holding investment or owning property is in a position to obtain taxation relief in respect of accountancy expenses, but an individual holding the same investments or owning the same property cannot so obtain that relief. That is the anomaly.

Mr. Silverman: It appears to me that what the hon. Gentleman is saying—of course, I may be completely wrong—is that if, to reduce his liability to Income Tax, a man forms a limited company which never carries on any business at all, he derives the advantage from doing


so. What the hon. Gentleman wants to do, apparently, is to give the same advantage to all those who have not employed that device, because, otherwise, the man who has been paying in full suffers as against the man who has adopted the device for reducing his liability. That is what the hon. Gentleman calls an anomaly. If it is an anomaly, then I agree with the Economic Secretary that it is not an injustice.

Sir William Darling: A good deal has been heard from the Opposition about tax evasion and avoidance, and some general strictures have been made on Members on this side of the Committee because of the quite legitimate desire to pay no more taxes than they should. This idea which we are now discussing raises a peculiar question. It almost forces me to consider doing what others have done in the past, that is, turn myself into a limited company. It was certainly done by Edgar Wallace, and there are many other examples.
If we were to do that, we should, of course, claim support for the action from the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) and also from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), so that when we converted ourselves into a non-personal organisation in order to meet an anomaly we should not be blamed even more than we are at present, because we would have de-individualised ourselves to please right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I think that this is a very trifling matter. In the interest of the Revenue there should be skill in the presentation of our accounts, and until there is a turnover tax, which would be simple if not just, it is desirable to encourage the expert presentation of our accounts in a proper way in order to see that the Revenue is not defrauded and receives less than it should. Therefore, I think that my hon. Friend might well accept this new Clause.

Question put, and negatived.

New Clause.—(ALLOWANCE FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ON FARMHOUSE.)

The Income Tax Act, 1952, shall have effect as if in section three hundred and fourteen there were inserted after the word "farmhouse" in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) thereof the words "having a rateable value of not less than twenty-six pounds."—[Mr. MottRadclyffe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. C. E. Mott-Radclyffe: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
My hon. Friend will be aware that under Section 314 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, capital expenditure allowances are given on the full cost of constructing or improving a farm cottage, but only on one-third of the cost of constructing or improving a farmhouse. This is due to some rather curious mathematical formula which the Treasury has evolved by which it has come to the conclusion that one-third of a farmhouse is a place of business and two-thirds a place of residence, no matter how small the farmhouse may be.
The object of the new Clause is to bring the small farmhouse of a rateable value of less than £26 a year into exactly the same category as the farm cottage for the purpose of a capital expenditure allowance. The present system of the operation of the capital expenditure allowance creates a number of obviously unfair anomalies. For instance, there are owner occupiers, and occupiers of small farmhouses who are in many cases obliged to accept a lower standard of accommodation and fewer amenities than many agricultural workers.
In the North of England, in particular, and in Scotland—but by no means confined to either district—there are many farms where the farmhouse itself is very small, but where a number of modern agricultural cottages have been built in which the agricultural labourer is enjoying far better amenities than his employer. I would also remind my hon. Friend that in the North of England it is by no means unusual for farm workers to live in the farmhouse and so long as this particular discrimination exists against a building which is technically a farmhouse though no bigger than a farm cottage neither the farm worker nor the farmer can enjoy the improved accommodation which is their due.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) and I have deliberately put a figure of £26 rateable value into this Clause. We did so for a definite purpose. That value roughly embraces the three or four-bedroom farmhouse and excludes the bigger one. By putting that ceiling we thought we would enable occupiers of small farmhouses to enjoy minimum reasonable


standards of accommodation and, at the same time, would prevent the capital expenditure allowance being given for extravagant and excessive expenditure on much larger farmhouses, which would be unreasonable to ask for.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will feel that I have made out a fair and a clear case for the removal of an absurd anomaly between one building of three bedrooms used as a farmhouse and another building of three bedrooms used as a farm cottage, both equally in need of repair and improvement.

Colonel Ralph Clarke: I do not wish to detain the Committee, but I want to emphasise the danger of what I might term capital starvation of the farmhouse in favour of the rest of the farm. That arises from the fact that only one-third of the capital expended on the farmhouse ranks under the section to which we have referred. I know of many cases where the farmer in the old farmhouse has a much lower standard of living than some of the men working on his farm. Again, in the case of a family holding, the family perhaps own the farm, live on it and work it, yet have a much lower standard of existence than agricultural workers in the neighbourhood.
This is very discouraging to those who wish to see what I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has referred to as the "agricultural ladder" become a real feature of the agricultural life of this country. The agricultural worker who saves a certain amount of money and changes from agricultural worker to the occupier of a small farm finds that, just when he has to risk his hard-saved capital he has also to overcome the opposition of his wife, who is probably going from a nice, small, service cottage to a much older house with a much lower standard of amenity. That definitely deters the agricultural worker from the course I have outlined.
If it is thought that of these small farmhouses two-thirds have nothing to do with the farm at all, I am really amazed. One has only to go into some of the small farmhouses to find that one of the back rooms is the dairy, where the wife spends a great deal of her time. In the cellar such things as seed potatoes are

stored, and there may be other seeds in the attics. The front room is the office, where the farmer for at least a good deal of the evening fills in forms, writes his letters and so on.
The farmhouse is really an essential part of the farm equipment. I hope that this new Clause will be seriously considered, because I believe that as a result of the present legislation small farmhouses are deteriorating below the level of the workers' cottages surrounding them.

Mr. Maudling: As my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) are aware, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes a particular interest in the problems of the agricultural industry. He believes, for example, that the investment allowance provision which he introduced this year should be of considerable assistance to the farming industries generally. It is also true, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, that the small farmer often has to face not only economic but personal difficulties.
I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead regarding the importance of the small farmer as part of the general agricultural picture. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will believe me when I say that we have considered with great care what they have put forward in this new Clause, but I must say that I find difficulties in detail—and I am afraid in principle—which make it impossible for us to accept the Clause.
I should perhaps mention, first of all, one or two of the difficulties of detail which arise. For example, the test of rateable value which is proposed would lead to a number of difficulties. For example, it would have very little meaning at all in Scotland, whereas in England and Wales rating valuation varies a good deal. I think it would lead to considerable unfairness between one case and another. Introducing the level of £26 is bound to create unfairness to those people immediately below and immediately above the limit.
There are those definite objections in detail to the proposal, but the objections in principle are overwhelming. The


point really is that writing off of farm buildings used for the purposes of farming is a normal part of our Income Tax structure and that applies to barns, fences and other works, but a farmhouse is a building which functions as a dwelling-house and as part of the capital equipment of the farm. No other dwelling-house, as a dwelling-house, is the subject of a capital allowance.
Lord Waverley, during the Committee stage of the Income Tax Act, 1945, said, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer:
The farmhouse has to be treated on a different footing from farm buildings in general because, in fact, it serves a dual purpose. It is a dwelling-house and it is the headquarters of a particular unit in the farming industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1945; Vol. 410, c. 2377.]
One must recognise the force of this argument, that in so far as a farmhouse is used as part of the capital equipment of a farm, it is right and proper that there should be a deduction for Income Tax purposes, but in so far as it provides dwelling accommodation I cannot see that there is any more of a case for Income Tax deduction than there is for a dwelling-house occupied by someone engaged in other business.
It is true that deductions are allowed in respect of farm cottages, but it would be right to say that the farm cottage is in a different category because the cottage is provided by the farmer as part of the necessary capital equipment of his farm, and expenditure which he incurs on the farm cottage is definitely expenditure incurred wholly for the purpose of earning his farm profit, whereas expenditure incurred in providing himself with a farmhouse is not incurred for the purpose of earning a farm profit.
There is the question of whether one-third is a proper proportion. When taking a proportion of this kind one has to be arbitrary, and my hon. Friend has made the point that in small farmhouses in particular the accommodation is extremely limited. But we feel that on the evidence we have—and we have a fair amount of evidence of this kind—the proportion of one-third is fair. When we come to assess the farmer's income for the purposes of Schedule D assessment, then it is necessary to make a deduction for the annual value or rent of the farmhouse, and we find, in practice, that although no

fraction is laid down by statute in respect of Schedule D, in practice the amounts that we allow rarely exceed one-third. They sometimes come to substantially below one-third. It appears from detailed information which we have that in practice sometimes less than one-third of a farmhouse is used for farming purposes, but more than two-thirds of it is used for dwelling purposes.
We have studied this proposal with a great deal of care and we believe that it is not possible to make out a case for allowing a tax deduction in respect of capital expenditure on the portion of a farmhouse which is really a dwelling-house. The principle as enunciated by Lord Waverley, then Sir John Anderson, in 1945, has stood the test of time, and while I recognise the concern which my hon. Friends feel, I cannot help feeling that it has worked, on the whole, fairly as between taxpayer and taxpayer.
I hope my hon. Friends will believe, when I say we cannot accept this proposal, that it is not for lack of consideration or for lack of concern for the farming industry, but because we do not feel that it would be just between taxpayer and taxpayer to introduce this proposal.

Mr. Ralph Assheton: I very seldom disagree with my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, but on this occasion I should like to put another point of view. He and the Financial Secretary as well as the Chancellor of the Exchequer all have the disadvantage of living in the South of England, and they are probably not as familiar as I am with conditions in the North of England. There are in this country about 300,000 or 400,000 farmers, and the figures which the Ministry of Agriculture and the Board of Inland Revenue supply indicate that by far the greater number of farmers employ no farmworkers at all but live in a very small farmhouse and, with their families, do the whole work on the farm. At least three-quarters of the farms are within that category, and I believe the figure to be rather higher.
8.15 p.m.
I should like to take my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary round a great many small farmhouses in the North of England. It has been my duty to go round very many of them, and I am


familiar with the details of at least 50 or 60 farmhouses of this sort in that part of the country, so that I know what I am talking about. I could show the Economic Secretary small farmhouses with not more than three or four small bedrooms occupied by a working farmer and his family. Those farmhouses are falling far below the condition in which they ought to be, and that is largely because of this particular discrimination from which they suffer.
It is possible for a cottage to be built or re-equipped for a farm worker, and for the advantage of this Section to apply to that work. But when it comes to a farm cottage which is designated a farmhouse, although it is nothing more than a very old farmhouse with none of the amenities which many hon. Members feel are wholly necessary, it is not permitted to take advantage of the Section. I assure the Economic Secretary that until, this change is made, farmhouses in the North and West of England will be far behind the standards to which they ought to be brought.
The cost of modernising an old farmhouse is very considerable these days. It entails installing modern heating ranges, bathrooms, electricity, and so on. These are very great burdens on the small owner and on the owner with a large number of these farmhouses to deal with. I do not think it is fair to say that a cottage is more a part of the farm capital than a small farmhouse. I make no claim for the larger farmhouse. Of course, if a man has a farmhouse with seven or eight bedrooms, that comes in an entirely different category. But the farmhouse with three or four bedrooms does fit into this picture.
The figure of £26 rateable value was put forward as a difficulty by the Economic Secretary. If he finds that is a difficulty because of the different rating system in Scotland, I should like to consult him and propose some method of getting over that difficulty, because I can think of several methods. If he were to base his differential on the number of bedrooms, that would be one suitable method, and I have no doubt that there are other criteria which could be used.
I do not know whether hon. Members agree with me, but I consider that the small farmer living on his own farm and

working the farm with his family has one of the hardest lives in the country. He milks the cows twice a day for seven days a week, whether he is ill or well. He does not have Saturdays and Sundays off. The larger farmer who is able to employ labour finds himself milking the cows on Saturdays and Sundays, but at least he can take Mondays or Tuesdays off. The small farmer never does. I spoke to a small farmer the other day who had lived in the same house where he was born 60 or 70 years ago, and be had never spent one night from home. This is a hard-working section of the community and it is only fair that they should get the same sort of concession as other people in the community.

Mr. John Morrison: I should like to support the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton). There is great importance in this comparatively small proposal. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) emphasised the position of the farming "ladder" and referred to the wives of the small farmers. As my right hon. Friend has said, this is a seven days a week job, and without taking up any more time I express the hope that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will give further consideration to this new Clause.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe), in moving the new Clause, based his argument on the fact that it would rectify an anomaly in Section 314 of the Income Tax Act, 1952.
I rise only to point out that there are other anomalies besides the one to which he referred. My hon. Friends and I had tabled two new Clauses which, in our view, would have rectified greater anomalies. Unfortunately for us, those Clauses have not been called. I congratulate the hon. Member on the fact that his Clause has been called and that he has been allowed to put his case to the Treasury. As we have now heard from the Economic Secretary, the Treasury has considered the case.
This Clause has given the hon. Member an opportunity, which we should have valued had our new Clauses been called, of taking the matter to a division. A number of his hon. Friends are obviously


with him and feel very deeply about the matter, and I hope that they will carry their views to the extent of calling a division and expressing them in the Lobby.

Mr. W. M. F. Vane: I ask my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to look at this matter again before Report stage. He said that the proposal contained in the new Clause was likely to cause unfairness. It is likely to remove unfairness and not cause unfairness as between the small farmhouse and the farm cottage. They are indistinguishable for many purposes.
It is frequently the custom in the North of England for farm workers to live in the farmhouse. That is not altogether a popular system, but we must face the facts as they exist and as they will be with us for a little time yet. Under the existing law, the owner of a farm cottage who wishes to improve it by adding a bathroom and providing other amenities can get full tax relief. On the other hand, if he is carrying out this improvement on a small farmhouse in which one or two farmworkers live, the tax relief is a great deal less, and that is extremely unfair. It is to remove that unfairness in particular that some such provision as has been suggested should be adopted.
It is very important to maintain the standard of the small farmhouses. By and large, they are on small farms and not on the best land. If we want to maintain full agricultural production in such areas, it is essential that we do what we can to provide the necessary tools for not only the farmer and the farmworker but also for the farmer's wife.

Mr. Maudling: I should be misleading my hon. Friends if I gave any undertaking that this matter would be reconsidered before the Report stage. However, I can say that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will study with great care what has been said, and I know that he will be glad to receive from right hon. and hon. Friends further details of these matters and any further suggestions that they can make about alleviating the difficulties of the small farmers.
I hope that my hon. Friends will be prepared to leave the matter there. I cannot give any undertaking to reconsider the point, because I find the difficulties of principle in the suggestion insuperable. My right hon. Friend is anxious

to consider all matters in detail. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) is inviting me to see something in practice, I hope I shall have the opportunity of accepting his invitation.

Question put, and negatived.

New Clause.—(EXPENSES ALLOWANCES, &c.)

In subsection (1) of section one hundred and sixty of the Income Tax Act, 1952 (which provides for expenses allowances to be chargeable to tax subject to any claim being made for money expended "wholly, exclusively and necessarily" in performing the duties of the office or employment), the second paragraph of the said subsection (1) shall be amended to read as follows:—
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall prevent a claim for a deduction being made under paragraph 7 of the said Ninth Schedule in such form and detail as the surveyor may prescribe in respect of any money expended wholly, exclusively and necessarily in performing the duties of the office or employment."—[Mr. Houghton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Clause proposes to add a few words to the second paragraph of Section 160 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1952. It proposes that the paragraph shall be amended to read as follows:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall prevent a claim for a deduction being made under paragraph 7 of the said Ninth Schedule…
Here it is proposed to insert:
…in such form and detail as the surveyor may prescribe…
That is the end of the new words. The paragraph will then continue:
…in respect of any money expended wholly, exclusively and necessarily in performing the duties of the office or employment.
The background to the new Clause is the rumpus that we have had lately on the subject of directors' expenses and Income Tax. I do not propose to go into the details of the case about which there was a complaint by the Institute of Directors and which was the subject of an apology by the Board of Inland Revenue conveyed in a letter to Brigadier-General Sir Edward Spears by the Financial Secretary on 6th May. There has been some correspondence about it in the "Financial Times" since then, and there have been Questions in the House, and, to an extent at all events, I think


that the facts of that case are now known. Anyway, I am satisfied that I know the full facts.
The inspector of taxes concerned in that case is a member of the Inland Revenue Staff Association, of which I am the general secretary, and, as was his right, he came to tell me all about it from his point of view. Whether or not that apology was justified is not material to our discussion on the Clause, though it was the spark which set off quite a few explosions. The apology from Somerset House was more welcome to a lot of people than if it had come from Moscow.
Either because it was unexpected or because it was so unusual, the very surprise of it overcame the stolid businesslike qualities of many directors, and they were moved to an emotional reaction. Many of them sat down straightaway during their busy day and wrote letters to the Press. They tell us that they have not got time in their export drive to supply information asked for by the Inland Revenue, but on occasion they find time to write long letters to the newspapers and the professional journals complaining about the treatment which they get from the Inland Revenue.
Let us take note in this Committee of the fact that there has been a lot of complaint lately from directors of companies and high executives and from their professional advisers about the questions which are being asked by the Inland Revenue on matters concerning benefits in kind and expenses allowances. That is a serious matter, and the Committee ought to consider it in a responsible spirit.
What has happened to bring about this wave of resentment and hostility towards the Inland Revenue, which is, after all, merely discharging a difficult and unpleasant task imposed upon it by the House of Commons? It is the belief that the Inland Revenue is probably going too far and asking too many questions about too many things. The Institute of Directors, in the evidence which it has given to the Royal Commission on Taxation, has alleged that directors are asked to supply an unnecessary amount of detail, that a claimant has to submit to a searching inquisition and that inspectors make the procedure as difficult and as unpleasant for the claimant as possible.
These are serious allegations against the wisdom and tolerance of the Inland Revenue authority in discharging their duty.
8.30 p.m.
This new Clause is an attempt to recover somewhat the ground which has been lost recently by exchanges which have taken place between the Financial Secretary and the Institute of Directors to give the honest taxpayer some reassurance that this Committee will uphold the law, and to give to the hard pressed Inland Revenue authority a reassurance of our confidence in them—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Houghton: My hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) has caused the obligatory attendance of many company directors who are Members of the House. I was glad to see them if only for a brief interval. I have just said what is the purpose of this new Clause. It has to do solely with administration. It does not raise any principle of taxation, because the principle of this matter was settled in Part IV of the Finance Act, 1948, when the House wrote into the Income Tax legislation authority for the taxation of benefits in kind and the treating of expense allowances as perquisites in the case of company directors and in the case also of persons other than directors receiving more than £2,000 a year.
That was done in 1948, and since then it has been written into the Consolidated Income Tax Act, 1952. I explain that only to clear up any doubt as to whether the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1952, were, in fact, inaugurated in that year or whether they dated from an earlier time. They do date from an earlier time, from 1948 when there was a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer.
None will question the rightness of the principle passed by this House in the Finance Act, 1948, on the Income Tax liability of benefits in kind and expense allowances in the case of company directors and other higher executives, because at that time there was undoubtedly a great deal about the personal expenditure of a good many business men that


left much to be explained. The ordinary worker could not understand how it was that, under conditions of heavy and, to some people, penal taxation, many of those in business were able apparently to maintain a standard of life and of personal expenditure which hardly squared with what taxation was supposed to do to personal incomes. There was no doubt that at that time many people were seeking benefits in kind as an alternative to remuneration and were also seeking personal expenses allowances as an alternative to remuneration.
The reason why it was necessary specially to legislate on these matters was because of the uncertainty of the law regarding the Income Tax liability of benefits in kind and of expenses allowances before that time. There had been rulings of the courts in years past which led generally to the conclusion that benefits in kind were assessable to Income Tax only if they were convertible into money; to be money's worth was not enough, they had to be convertible into money. That was the general belief established by a number of settled cases about benefits in kind, and there were many company directors who were receiving benefits in kind which they could not convert to their personal use, or at least they could not convert into money, and assessments upon which, therefore, under the law as it stood before 1948 were unlikely to be upheld if appeals were made.
So what the 1948 Act did was to provide that all expenses allowances of company directors and others getting more than £2,000 a year should be treated as perquisites of the office or employment, and that the director or employee should be assessable to Income Tax accordingly. As regards benefits in kind, in Section 161 of the Income Tax Act of 1952 very rigorous conditions were laid down regarding the assessment to Income Tax of living or other accommodation, entertainments, domestic or other services, or all other benefits or facilities of whatsoever nature. No Act of Parliament could go further than that—"of whatsoever nature." And as regards those, it said that they were to be valued and the value of the benefits in kind was to be regarded as having been refunded to the director or the employee concerned and charged to Income Tax accordingly.
The provisions of Section 160 which deal with expenses allowances, whilst saying that these allowances should be treated as the perquisites of office and added to emoluments for Income Tax purposes, says that
nothing in that Section shall prevent a claim being made under paragraph 7 of the Ninth Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1952, in respect of any money expended wholly, exclusively and necessarily in performing the duties of the office or employment.
That is to say, if a director or other person covered by those Sections received an expense allowance, he could ask for Income Tax relief on such amount of that allowance as was expended wholly, necessarily and exclusively in the performance of his office, but any balance not so expended obviously formed part of the Income Tax assessment on the person concerned.
It is that particular paragraph of Section 160 that this new Clause proposes to alter by inserting the words:
in such form and detail as the surveyor may prescribe.
They would remove any doubts about the rights of the surveyor to ask for such information in support of such claim as he thought necessary and just in the circumstances of an individual case.
In order to complete the picture of explanation, I ought to add that where a company makes payments to a director or provides him with benefits in kind which the company itself certifies are wholly used and expended in the performance of the duties of a director or employee, the surveyor who, in modern parlance is the inspector of taxes, has the power to make what is called a dispensation. That is to say, to the extent that he is satisfied that these payments certified by the company are wholly used and expended in the performance of the duties of the office, he may give straight away a certificate of exemption of these amounts and they would not be taxable on the recipient.
The only form of which I am aware in this connection—although much has been said about the issue of forms lately—is the one which the Inland Revenue issues to companies asking for a declaration of any such amount paid to directors and others which the companies cannot certify as being wholly and necessarily expended in the performance of the office


and which, therefore, may require some inquiry and consideration by the Inland Revenue. That form is called P.11D.
I hasten to add that the letter "P" does not stand for "persecution." It is a series letter only used for certain forms. Nor does the letter "D" stand for "damned." It refers to directors. This form asks the company or the employer to make a declaration of such expense allowances for 'benefits in kind as are paid to directors or other employees in the higher income ranges which are not the subject of dispensation and which the Inland Revenue, therefore, must know about.
The new Clause makes no fundamental change either in the obligation of the taxpayer or in the powers of the inspector. It is really a token of confidence in the administration of the Income Tax Act by those entrusted with it and a vote of confidence in Her Majesty's Government in their resolve to uphold the law, which I understand to be the policy of the Exchequer.
A good deal of nonsense, but quite a lot of good sense, has been written lately about this troublesome matter. I commend to hon. and right hon. Members opposite an article in the "Economist" of 19th June, which I think is the fairest and most balanced comment on this matter that I have read recently, although there was in the "Manchester Guardian" of 23rd June a very helpful and understanding letter, written by a correspondent signing himself "Incognito." In both the article and the letter there is an appreciation of the difficulties of bath the taxpayer and of the Inland Revenue.
Now the issue is quite plain for the Committee to consider. Are we to uphold the law or are we not? I am sure that the answer would be, "Yes we are." However much hon. Members opposite may have disliked the Sections in Part IV of the Finance Act, 1948—when I was not a Member of the House and cannot therefore say what was the nature of the debate at that time—and however much they disliked what they feared might be the beginnings of some kind of inquisition, it must be acknowledged that those Sections were necessary then and are necessary today.
8.45 p.m.
If they were not there I think right hon. and hon. Members opposite would agree that abuses would occur again and that many people would have much more access to the resources of their companies than the great mass of workers lower down, using their incomes to ensure the best arrangements for their remuneration and facilities to enable them to get the best level of wealth they could at the lowest level of tax. That is only natural. The doctrine has been freely expressed by hon. Members opposite that a taxpayer is entitled to make any rearrangement of his affairs open to him in order to lessen the burden of taxation, and that applies to company directors as to anyone else; they are as freely entitled to use their influence as anyone else.
I am sure it would be agreed that we cannot let these Sections go out of Chapter II, Part IV of the Income Tax Act, 1952. If we cannot let them go but must keep them, they must be applied and administered. The question is, how is that to be done? Here we have to weigh in the balance all those qualities of tolerant yet efficient administration for which our Civil Service is noted throughout the world. Literally, inspectors of taxes, by the powers they have under the Act, could press for every bit of information they thought desirable to enable them to judge matters which come to them for decision, although let us not lose sight of the fact that in the background there are the local commissioners who are the appellant body if any dispute arises between the taxpayer and the local Inland Revenue officers.
Commissioners are locally appointed and are composed for the most part of persons who fully appreciate all the problems of business directors and others of substantial means. All commissioners of taxes have substantial means, and no one going before the commissioners of taxes could plead that they were not being tried by their peers, for they would be. It is other people who are not quite so certain that they are being tried by their peers, but company directors are not among them.
Those with whom Chapter II of Part IV of the 1952 Act was concerned can go to the local commissioners of taxes with every confidence that they will get


a fair hearing of any complaint they make about unjust treatment by a local inspector of taxes. Many of those who complain attach the whole of the blame to the Inland Revenue and say that it is the Inland Revenue which should mend its ways and which is depriving the taxpayer of a fair deal in this difficult matter.
Hon. Members may ask what this new Clause will do which is not done already. It would be a token of the right of the inspector in the discharge of his duty to prescribe the form and detail in which he may ask for information regarding expenses allowances and benefits in kind which he must look into if a proper Income Tax assessment is to be made. This does not mean that the law will be administered any more rigorously than in the past. It does not mean that the Inland Revenue will get more vexatious in its dealings with directors than in the past.
The Chancellor has repeated not only his admiration for the work of this Department, but his determination to uphold it in the reasonable exercise of its duties. I think that everyone will agree that it is simply impossible to do the job which the Inland Revenue has to do without asking questions. These questions must be asked. There is simply no alternative. Information may be given about lump sums and expenses allowances. There may be obvious questions to ask, and a number of things to ask about benefits in kind. Taxpayers must understand why the Inland Revenue is doing what it has to do and how just and fair it is that they should co-operate.
Take, for example, the case I recently mentioned, of the company director of hotels and shops whose remuneration was 5s. 9d. a week. His firm paid him just enough to buy his insurance stamp. All the rest came out of the firm; his living expenses, his food, his clothing, his travel expenses, his holidays, his children's schooling, his wife's fur coat—everything came out of the firm. He had only 5s. 9d. a week. Clearly, a lot of questions had to be asked about that. Some assessment had to be made of what was the worth of those benefits in kind. It was probably right that he should live on the firm when visiting the hotels or inspecting the shops. But, when he was at home, he should be paying his

way like the rest of us. But he was living on the firm.
In this particular case, I have no doubt, after quite a lot of questions and inquiries, the Inspector of Taxes decided—and it was agreed by the taxpayer's professional adviser—that his personal benefits in kind were worth £2,500 a year. The question asked by the professional adviser was, how was his client to pay the tax? He would be assessed on £2,500 which would include Surtax as well. "My client had no money"—says this professional adviser in a letter to the "Accountant"—"How can he pay? He has gone to his firm, and they say, 'We are not paying. We are paying you no more money, 5s. 9d. is enough for you. You are living on the firm for everything else. You must do the best you can.'"
The professional adviser was asking all the other professional advisers who read the "Accountant," "What does A do now?" The advice given in the "Accountant" was, first of all, that this was a case for a vigorously conducted appeal—notwithstanding the fact that the professional adviser had agreed that £2,500 was a proper figure. No, a vigorously conducted appeal was called for, and then various suggestions and possibilities—I will not call them loopholes—various possibilities of the situation were explained in a most erudite and technical way.
I do not know how it will end. Possibly, when the appeal is over, the assessment will be upheld, and this taxpayer, who is getting 5s. 9d. a week and living to the extent of £2,500 a year on the firm, will just turn out his pockets and say, "I cannot pay." It would not be in order for me to pursue the possible sequel to that plea, because the man would then pass out of the hands of the inspector into the equally tender hands of the collector who would, of course, have certain powers either of recovery or of bankruptcy. This is an indication of the sort of thing that can arise.
I read also in the "Accountant" recently a letter which had been received from an inspector of taxes. It was published in full except that the names of the taxpayer and the inspector were left out. It was presented to the, professional fraternity, and anyone else who reads the magazine, as another outrageous example of the inquisitorial methods of the Inland Revenue.
Anyone who understands the nature of these cases would realise in a moment that when the inspector inquires about a claim for over £3,000 for car expenses when a man is running four cars, it is not unreasonable to ask the taxpayer whether his wife had the exclusive use of one car. Does anyone in this Committee with four motor-cars deprive his wife of the exclusive use of one, even if they are all on the firm? Any hon. Member who would like to offer evidence for our information on that matter shall have the floor immediately as far as I am concerned, provided he will put all four cars in a common pool to enable my hon. Friends who have not got cars to get home at nights.
Seriously, however, questions have to be asked. Forms of questionnaire or some other paper device or interview must be gone through in order to get the information. Much of this is done amicably, and agreements are arrived at. I do not want to exaggerate the extent to which this kind of tax avoidance goes on. Many volunteer the information. Most people reply to the questions honestly and truthfully, but there are some who are most difficult to deal with.
It is for the protection of the honest taxpayer that we must uphold the reasonable exercise of the powers given to the Inland Revenue. If the Committee once departs from that principle, then the whole standard of taxation machinery will begin to decline. We are said to have the most efficient system of direct taxation in the world, and I believe that to be true. There are many other countries where a similar system of direct taxation has proved quite impossible to administer. I venture the opinion that if France had had as efficient a system of direct taxation as this country has, redistribution of incomes and greater social security would have been possible there.

Mr. John Arbuthnot: On a point of order. Is redistribution of incomes a matter which comes within the new Clause?

The Chairman: I thought that the hon. Member was going a bit beyond the new Clause. We have spent a long time on it already.

Mr. Houghton: I thought that it was up to the hon. Member who was speaking to illustrate his arguments with reference to wider considerations. Behind the Clause lies a most important principle of administrative efficiency in what we all agree is a difficult and delicate statutory provision. All the time the administration of these Sections of the Income Tax Act is on a knife edge. At any moment the taxpayer can go off the deep end and write a letter to the Chancellor. At any moment temper can give way. Of course, sometimes the officer of the Inland Revenue may find it extremely difficult to maintain his customary calm and dispassionate approach. On the whole, however, I think that without any doubt more complaints are made against Inland Revenue officials and their dealings in this matter than are justified in the circumstances.
9.0 p.m.
I trust that the Financial Secretary, when he replies, will take the opportunity of clearing up beyond any further doubt just where the Government stand on this question. Damage has been done in recent weeks. It need not have been done, and as far as possible it should now be repaired. Let us say to all—to those in the Inland Revenue and to taxpayers, honest, indifferent and bad—that this is the law—that it is essential to uphold it and that in the interests of equity of our taxation system reasonable taxpayers will co-operate with reasonable officials and that we put the stamp of approval on what has happened. This will echo the words of the concluding sentence of the article in the "Economist," to which I have referred, which says:
The real question is whether the law as it now stands is administered fairly and reasonably. To that question, the fair answer seems to be Yes.

Mr. F. J. Erroll: It says:
the fair answer seems to be a qualified Yes
if the hon. Member quotes it correctly.

Mr. Houghton: To that question, the fair answer seems to be a qualified Yes.
I thank the hon. Member.

Mr. Erroll: Let us have accuracy.

Mr. Houghton: I have given it accurately.

Mr. Erroll: Oh, no.

Mr. Houghton: I have acknowledged that I did not say the word "qualified." Anyhow, the "Economist" says: "a qualified Yes." I do not think there is a big difference. The Administration has its job to do, and I am sure that we need not introduce the word "qualified."

Mr. Erroll: But the "Economist" did.

Mr. Houghton: I question whether in the circumstances the word "qualified" need be introduced.
Let the Financial Secretary say what is his opinion of the Administration, and I hope we may then get from him the mark of approval on the Administration which does not even include the word "qualified." There is nothing seriously wrong with "qualified" if those who wish to view it that way use that word. It is a most difficult problem to do it to the absolute satisfaction of everybody, but as to the general fairness of the administration I think there can be no serious doubt.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): As I understood the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) during his speech, which did not err on the side of brevity, his proposal, as he explained it, would not make any substantial alteration in the existing law. Indeed, he did not put it forward on those grounds.
Three times the hon. Member defended his proposal on what, I think, I can fairly describe as psychological grounds. He used the phrases "a token of confidence," "an attempt to recover ground which has been lost," and "a vote of confidence." As I understand the hon. Member—I do not think I am misrepresenting him—his purpose is not to remedy what he would regard as a manifest defect in the legal powers of the Revenue in this respect. It was substantially to establish the general confidence, to demonstrate, to give a demonstration of, to discuss the general confidence of this Committee in the administration of our tax law.
So far as that aspect is concerned, it can be dealt with in a moment. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the hon. Member for Sowerby acknowledged, went out of his way the other day to express his confidence in the way in which what the hon.

Member rightly described as "this difficult and complex task" was discharged. I should certainly wish to say that, over this infinitely difficult field which inevitably arouses strong feelings, we are singularly fortunate in this country in having our very complex law of taxation administered by a body as efficient and as able as the Board of Inland Revenue.
Where I would differ from the hon. Gentleman is in the suggestion made in the earlier part of his speech that that confidence is in any way shaken by the fact that when, as must always happen in any great organisation, it is thought that one particular member of that staff has gone too far, the position is weakened. I would say to the Committee in all sincerity that all the reasonable organisations with which I have been associated are distinguished more by their willingness to admit a rare error than by their obstinate attempts to justify everything they have ever done in all circumstances.
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that the vast majority of these cases are cases with which hon. Members are never troubled, because they are settled amicably and in the most friendly way between the local inspector on the one hand and the taxpayer on the other. If the purpose of the new Clause is to elicit once more an expression of the confidence of Her Majesty's Government in the administration of the Inland Revenue, that assurance is given here and now.
It is really quite a different thing to write a token or a vote of confidence into the law, and we have, therefore, considered, as this is put forward as projected legislation, whether it would, in fact, have any effect at all. Whatever the desire to produce a token or vote of confidence may be, this Committee does not want to write into an Act of Parliament something that is unnecessary, and that, as far as the legislative work of the Committee is concerned, would be enacting a fact. I would ask hon. Members who are less familiar than the hon. Member for Sowerby with the way in which the matter works to consider what the existing provision is, in order to make up their minds whether there is any purpose to be served by putting these words into the existing law.
Let us see, in the first place, what it is that the hon. Member proposes to do.


He proposes to add in the middle of the proviso to what is now Section 160 of the Income Tax Act, 1952—which is a consolidation statute, consolidating the earlier provisions—at the point after the reference to paragraph 7 of the Ninth Schedule, in which it is enacted that claims can be made for a deduction in respect of money "wholly, exclusively and necessarily" spent in performing the duties of the office, the words—
in such form and detail as the surveyor may prescribe.
Let us see what effect, if any, that would have. We can best test it by going through what actually happens. In the first place, under the provisions brought into force a couple of years ago, the form to which the hon. Member quite accurately referred—form P.11D—is served on the company which is the employer of the director or executive over £2,000 a year. On that form, the company is required to give information, among other things, about expenses, payments, and benefits in kind to directors or such employees, sums paid in satisfaction of expenses incurred by the director or employee, the cost of providing benefits in kind or facilities or assets transferred, and, similarly, fees, bonuses, commissions, etc. The company is required under penalty to provide that information, and, that information having been provided, the next step is to assess this as income. Then it is for him to explain that these monies were expended wholly, necessarily and exclusively in performing his duties.
The onus is upon the director to establish this, and to satisfy the inspector that the money was paid to him for those purposes and expended for those purposes. That can be done in a wide variety of ways. As the hon. Member for Sowerby said, in certain easy cases what are called "dispensations" are given, to prevent the inspector and the director concerned going through a lot of formalities in regard to expenses which are well-known and which are repeated year after year. Nobody wants to interfere with that. On the other hand, the amount of information that the inspector may require before he is satisfied that the director has discharged the onus which is upon him that the moneys were paid to him for those expenses will vary from case to case.
Consider the case of a director of a reputable and well-known public company who, on a salary of £5,000, claims £30 paid in respect of travelling expenses. I doubt whether any very close detail would be required in the normal case. Take another case, nothing like so extreme as that which the hon. Member for Sowerby chose, of a director of a private company who, on a salary of £1,000, is running a figure of £5,000 for expenses. I have no doubt that very considerable detail would generally, and properly, be asked for. Be the information required great or small, it is still for the taxpayer, in this case the director, to establish to the satisfaction of the inspector that the moneys come within the Section.
The inspector can ask for such information as he likes, and if the information is not furnished he has the very easy remedy of simply disallowing the claim and of assessing the director to tax. Naturally, the matter does not stop there. If the director whose expenses are disallowed objects to that decision, one of two things happens: either he acquiesces reluctantly or enthusiastically and pays the tax on that amount, or he appeals to the Commissioners under the procedure to which the hon. Member for Sowerby referred. I agree with the hon. Member that the people concerned get a very fair deal before the Commissioners. I am glad to pay that tribute to them. If the matter goes to the Commissioners it is still for the taxpayer to establish his case. Otherwise, he is taxed on that amount.
Looking at the picture in that light, a proposal formally to enact that the claim shall be made in such form and detail as the surveyor may prescribe is unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman opposite asked what was the objection to it in that case, and I will deal with that point. If something is unnecessary, it is wrong to insert it in legislation. After all, those who have to construe these things have said time and again that in construing them they try to attach some importance to the intentions of this House.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Jay: On the right hon. Gentleman's own interpretation, would it be doing more than clarifying the present law? Do we not often clarify Clauses in Bills?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is done for the avoidance of doubt, but there is no doubt here at all to avoid. I would say in all seriousness that it is really a novel argument to say, "Admittedly it will have no effect, but it will do no harm."
As I was saying when the right hon. Gentleman intervened, there are people outside who have to seek to construe the legislation which this House enacts, and perhaps particularly in financial matters that is something of no little difficulty. If we are really going to put into a statute words which we deem to be unnecessary, we are really quite deliberately adding to the confusion of legislation.
For that reason, I suggest that it would be a wrong thing to do, and that we really cannot justify doing it, because, as the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) knows so well, when a proposal is put into an Act which is admitted to be meaningless, it is not a fact which can be drawn to the attention of the court. We have to try to attach some meaning to it. Therefore, I say that if this were a proposal which had some practical effect, I would be very happy to consider it on its merits.

Sir F. Soskice: It would help me very much if the right hon. Gentleman would point to the provision in the Income Tax Act, 1952, which in terms empowers the surveyor to prescribe the form and detail upon which claims for expenses may be made? Would he be so good as to say which is the provision?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman must have failed to apprehend my argument, which is no doubt my own fault, from the very fact that he puts that question. The sole point which I was putting to the Committee was that it was quite unnecessary to have such a power because we are here dealing with a case in which it is necessary for the taxpayer to satisfy the surveyor. If it is necessary for the taxpayer to do that, then it really seems to me to be adding a completely unnecessary thing to say that he must be bound to satisfy the surveyor in a particular form prescribed by him.
Let us look at the matter as one of common sense. I am trying to satisfy the right hon. and learned Gentleman

who has asked for information in whatever form he likes. If I am trying to satisfy him, I try to give him the information, and it really is not necessary for him to be armed, in addition, with powers to prescribe the particular form in which I furnish it. He will ask the question, and I shall have the best possible incentive for trying to answer it.
For that reason, it really seems to me that it is unnecessary to prescribe this thing because these words are inserted nowhere else, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well. As I understood him, the hon. Member for Sowerby did not suggest that the inspectors were handicapped in any way by the fact that these words were not inserted. He put it, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman no doubt heard, on a largely psychological basis, with which I have sought to deal.
I suggest, with respect, that the hon. Gentleman by doing this would not, in fact, put the inspectors in any stronger position than they are at present for obtaining such information as may be required to establish that this is a bona fide claim. In those circumstances, it really would not be in accordance with the responsibilities of this Committee or of the Government for us to add words which really are not necessary, and which add nothing to the powers of the officials concerned.

Sir F. Soskice: We have listened to the kind of speech at which the Financial Secretary has shown himself very adept. He skilfully skirted round the point of substance made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) in a speech which, according to the Financial Secretary, did not err on the side of brevity. I am sorry that he said that. I thought it was certainly not a sentence too long, and perhaps I may say to the Financial Secretary that were I to point out the respects in which his own oratory errs I would be pointing to features so well known to the House as to be hardly worth while recapitulating.
May I get back to the main point of this debate? It is a debate we have had every year for some time now because, as the Financial Secretary himself said last year, the evasion of the provisions as to legitimate deduction of expenses is a serious problem. When we were in office


we introduced the provisions, to which my hon. Friend referred, in Chapter II, Part VI, of the Income Tax Act, 1952. We did it because it was generally recognised then, as it is generally recognised now, that expenses are claimed which are not admissible, and by half untruths, if not complete untruths, a deduction is procured in respect of those expenses.
I should have thought that the Financial Secretary would be ready to accept that if there is one thing which exasperates respectable taxpayers it is to see the obvious evasion which goes on, as anyone can see, in the streets, restaurants and elsewhere. One has only to see the new, expensive, flash cars being driven up and down the streets, and the enormous amounts paid for meals in restaurants, which obviously cannot be paid for out of net income and which are not, whatever pretence the Financial Secretary may seek to set up, paid for except out of expenses which are not, or ought not to be deductable.
When I say that that is most exasperating, I must say that I do not charge directors, as directors, with doing that sort of thing. I say that directors, for the most part, are people as respectable as other taxpayers. Respectable directors, who are the vast majority, must feel absolutely furious to see other directors letting them down by abusing the expenses provisions. Some taxpayers come under Schedule D and others under Schedule E, but if there is one thing which infuriates not only people earning wages, teachers taxed under Schedule E, architects and others and the great body of respectable directors who do their level best to comply strictly with the Income Tax provisions, it is to see this constant abuse which is practised by—I am quite certain—a small minority of taxpayers and which is not stopped, or adequately stopped, by the Government.
We revert to the subject year after year, because we think it our duty to 4he vast body of respectable taxpayers—I do not mind whether they are directors, Schedule E or Schedule D taxpayers—who try to obey the law and who are driven to the point of exasperation by seeing these constant abuses going on under their very noses. That is why we come back to the subject this year. So long as this goes on, and so long as we hear the type of com

placent speech from Ministers to which we have just listened, we feel that it is our duty to go on prodding the Government and trying to get them to take action to stop, or to diminish, this abuse.
As I say, when we were in office we devised the sections which are under discussion at the moment. They are sections which, broadly speaking, require that sums paid by companies to directors and highly-paid executives as expenses shall be taxable subject to this: that if the taxpayer—executive or director—in question can affirmatively satisfy the surveyor that he has a legitimate claim to deduct a payment that is allowed. We introduced a complicated set of provisions designed to achieve that end.
The fact is—and the evidence of one's own eyes tells one—that those provisions have not succeeded. Therefore, my hon. Friend, in a speech which was not one second too long having regard to the importance of the subject with which he was dealing, makes a new proposal to enable the Government to press on still further in an endeavour to stop up this leak of the nation's revenue into the pockets of persons who have no right to it.
The Financial Secretary did not say whether he, recognises that there is a problem or not. He skirted round it. He avoided dealing with the point of substance and went into a whole rigmarole of form, and rather sketchy form at that. He said first of all—and I am within the recollection of the Committee—that this proposal does not make any change in the existing law. I suppose he had in mind Section 31 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, which gives certain powers. But when I ventured to intervene, and he finally gave way, and I asked him if he could point to any provision in the Income Tax code which enables the surveyor to say, as this proposal does, that expenses are not to be claimed unless they are formulated in accordance with a form and by reference to details which the surveyor is to be entitled to prescribe, he could not point to any such provision in the Income Tax code and he agreed that there was not one.
He then changed his ground and said that all that he had been maintaining was that this provision was not necessary. Well, it is our best effort. It is


what we suggest. If the problem still persists—and I ask the Financial Secretary to contradict me if he really thinks it does not persist—let the Government, of which he is such a distinguished member, take some steps themselves to try to mitigate the loss.
What we really deplore is this completely supine attitude, both physically and intellectually at the moment, which the Financial Secretary—still more supine now—adopts towards this really very distressing problem which involves, as I say, so much bad feeling among so many millions of honest taxpayers. What my hon. Friend said—and he speaks with more experience on this subject than anybody else in the Committee—was that we could not pretend that the proposal was a panacea. It is obviously not that. We do not pretend that if these powers are given to the surveyor, as if by a stroke of the wand this abuse will stop, but this proposal does provide a power which does not exist at the moment.
The Financial Secretary said that at the moment the onus is on the taxpayer to make good his claim to deduction of expenses. Of course, it is in law, but I should have thought it was the experience of most people that in practice what happens is that a large claim for expenses is put in. It is unspecified. No detail is given, and then a long wrangle starts between the surveyor and the taxpayer, the surveyor writing letters and endeavouring in vain to ascertain the details, until at long last the unfortunate surveyor is almost overwhelmed with paper and is constrained to allow more than he ought to allow literally to get to some kind of finality in the matter.
If the surveyor can say, "If you wish to put forward these claims—if, for example, you wish to deduct the cost of running six motor cars and want to have a claim in respect of the expense of running them, you must say what the six motor cars are used for, what the mileage is for each for business purposes "—if he is entitled to say that that kind of question is to be answered at the outset by the taxpayer who claims the expense, then we should be much nearer to getting something like machinery that will come nearer to working. At least, when the surveyor gets the claim he will have it in a pretty particularised form. At the

moment, he very often simply gets a lump sum, and it is for him to try to ferret out the details. I should have thought that very often it is next to impossible to do so, especially when one gets unco-operative taxpayers.
9.30 p.m.
The Financial Secretary says that the surveyor's remedy is easy and that all he has to do is to disallow the claim. It is far from easy. That type of taxpayer is very persistent. The more respectable taxpayers do not find themselves in that situation because they do not put forward that type of claim. It is the somewhat arrogant and often quite unscrupulous taxpayers who get away with this kind of thing. The Opposition think it is high time the Government did something to stop it.
I do not want to incur the reproof that my hon. Friend quite improperly incurred from the Financial Secretary, and, therefore, having restated the point which apparently the Financial Secretary did not comprehend, although it was very clearly stated by my hon. Friend, I hope that we shall have a better answer from the Financial Secretary if he proposes to intervene in the debate again. If he does not intervene again, I hope that my hon. Friends will mark by going into the division Lobbies their sense of keen displeasure at the attitude which the Financial Secretary has adopted towards the very reasonable proposal which has been made to deal with a very urgent problem.

Mr, Boyd-Carpenter: I rise only because the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) was courteous enough to observe that, in his opinion, in my earlier observations I did not deal with what he was pleased to call the point of substance. I do not want to waste the time of the Committee by recalling the earlier debate, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know well that his hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) raised in substance two psychological points on this proposal. I dealt with them at some length, and I do not propose to repeat myself.
However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman introduced the general question of tax avoidance or evasion and complained, a little unfairly I think, that I had not anticipated him by dealing with


the general topic. As he said, he and his right hon. Friend have in different forms, and in different forms of words, raised these points each year, and we have sought to deal with them on their merits.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me whether we are concerned to prevent tax avoidance or evasion. As he knows perfectly well, the answer is that we are But then the right hon. and learned Gentleman, admitting that his own proposal really would not make much difference, said that it is up to the Government to propose something else. That suggestion springs from the attitude of mind on the other side of the Committee with which most hon. Members on his side of the Committee profoundly disagree. It is the attitude of mind that one must resort to legislation to deal with almost every problem.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion was that, if anything was wrong, it was incumbent upon us either to accept his proposals for legislation or ourselves to introduce a legislative project. I profoundly disagree. As I said during last year's debate, I believe that,

in general, the legal powers for tax enforcement in this country are adequate, and I believe that the remedy for such abuses as exist—I do not think that they exist on any great scale, but I am not concerned to deny that they do exist—is not by piling additional legal sanctions upon the Executive but by sensible and steady administration. I believe that the fact that the Inland Revenue have succeeded in overcoming many of the arrears of work which presented to them very great problems in the post-war years is enabling steadier and fuller examination to be given, and even better administration.

Therefore, I would say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, in rejecting his proposals for legislation and in offering under this head no proposals for legislation ourselves, we are certainly not suggesting that we do not concern ourselves very fully with this problem. We believe that it is best tackled in the way in which we are tackling it, by steady and sensible administration.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 279.

Division No. 183.]
AYES
[9.36 p.m


Acland, Sir Richard
Crosland, C. A. R.
Grey, C. F.


Adams, Richard
Grossman, R. H. S
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Albu, A. H.
Cullen, Mrs. A
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. Jamas (Llanelly)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Daines, P.
Hale, Leslie


Awbery, S. S.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hamilton, W. W.


Baird, J.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hannan, W


Balfour, A.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hardy, E. A.


Barnes, Rt. Hon A J
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hargreaves, A.


Bartley, P.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Bellenger, Rt.Hon. F. J
Deer, G.
Hastings, S.


Bence, C. R.
Delargy, H. J
Hayman, F. H.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Dodds, N. N.
Henderson, Rt. Hon A. (Rowley Regis)


Benton, G.
Donnelly, D. L.
Herbison, Miss M.


Beswick, F.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hewitson, Capt. M


Bevan, RI. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hobson, C. R.


Bing, G. H. C.
Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.
Holman, P.


Blackburn, F.
Edelman, M.
Holmes, Horace


Blenkinsop, A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Houghton, Douglas


Blyton, W R
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Boardman, H
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon A. G
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bowden, H. W
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Bowles, F. G.
Fernyhough, E.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Fienburgh, W.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Brockway, A. F.
Finch, H. J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Broughton, Dr A. D D
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Brown, Rt. Hon George (Belper)
Follick, M.
Janner, B.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Foot, M. M.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Forman, J. C.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Callaghan, L. J
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Champion, A J
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Chetwynd, G R
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Clunie, J.
Gibson, C. W.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Coldrick, W
Glanville, James
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Collick, P. H
Gooch, E. G.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Cove, W. G.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P C.
Keenan, W


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Greenwood, Anthony
Kenyon, C.




Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


King, Dr. H. M.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Kinley, J.
Pannell, Charles
Stress, Dr. Barnett


Lawson, G. M.
Pargiter, G. A
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Parker, J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Lee, Min Jennie (Cannock)
Paton, J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Lever, Harold (Chestham)
Peart, T. F.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Lewis, Arthur
Popplewell, E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Lindgren, G. S.
Porter, G.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Logan, D. G.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Thornton, E.


MacColl, J. E.
Proctor, W. T.
Timmons, J.


McGhee, H. G.
Pryde, D. J.
Tomney, F.


McGovern, J.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Usborne, H. C.


McInnes, J.
Rankin, John
Viant, S. P.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Reeves, J.
Wallace, H. W.


McLeavy, F.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Warbey, W. N.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Raid, William (Camlachie)
Watkins, T. E.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Weitzman, D.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigs)
Roberts, Gorenwy (Caernarvon)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Manuel, A. C.
Ross, William
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Royle, C.
Wigg, George


Mason, Roy
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Mayhew. C. P.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Wilkins, W. A.


Mellish, R. J.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Willey, F. T.


Messer, Sir F.
Short, E. W.
Williams, David (Neath)


Mikardo, Ian
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Mitchison, G. R.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Monslow, W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, W. R. (Droyleden)


Morgan, Dr. H. B- W.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley HM)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Morley, R.
Skeffington, A. M.
Willis, E. G.


Mulley, F. W.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Oldfield, W. H.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Wyatt, W. L.


Orbach, M.
Snow, J. W.
Yates, V. F.


Oswald, T.
Sorensen, R. W.



Padley, W. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Paget, R. T.
Sparks, J. A.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Steele, T.





NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Ford, Mrs. Patricia


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Campbell, Sir David
Fort, R.


Alport, C. J. M.
Gary, Sir Robert
Foster, John


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Channon, H,
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grins lead)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Arbuthnot, John
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Cole, Norman
Gammans, L. D.


Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.
Colegate, W. A.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj, G. Lloyd


Baldwin, A. E.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Glover, D.


Barlow, Sir John
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Godber, J. B.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Beach, Major Hicks
Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gough, C. F. H.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Crouch, R. F.
Gower, H. R.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Graham, Sir Fergus


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Crowder, Petre (Rulslip—Northwood)
Grimond, J.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gospert)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Davidson, Viscountess
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Deedes, W. F.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Birch, Nigel
Digby, S. Wingfield
Harden, J. R. E.


Bishop, F. P.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Black, C. W.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Boothby, Sir R. J. G.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bossom, Sir A. C
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A
Drayton, G. B-
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Drewe, Sir C.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Braine, B. R.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hay, John


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Duthie, W. S.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Heath, Edward


Brooman-White, R. C
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E
Higgs, J. M. C.


Brown, Jack (Govan)
Erroll, F. J.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Finlay, Graeme
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Bullard, D. G.
Fisher, Nigel
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
Fleetwood-Heskath, R. F
Hirst, Geoflrey


Burden, F. F. A.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Holland-Martin, C. J







Hollis, M. C.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Holt, A. F.
Marples, A. E.
Scott, R. Donald


Hope, Lord John
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Maude, Angus
Shepherd, William


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Maudling, R.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Horobin, I. M.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Mellor, Sir John
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Molson, A. H. E.
Snadden, W. McN.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Speir, R. M.


Hurd, A. R.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Neave, Airey
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Nicholls, Harmar
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Jennings, Sir Roland
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Storey, S.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Nutting, Anthony
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Oakshott, H. D.
Studholme, H. G.


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Odey, G. W.
Summers, G. S.


Kerr, H. W.
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Lambert, Hon. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lambton, Viscount
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Teeling, W


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Osborne, C.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Leather, E. H. C.
Page, R. G.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Perkins, Sir Robert
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Lindsay, Martin
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Tilney, John


Llewellyn, D. T.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Pitman, I. J.
Turner, H. F. L.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Turton, R. H,


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Powell, J. Enoch
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Longden, Gilbert
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Vosper, D. F.


Lucas, P. B, (Brentford)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Wade, D. W.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ramsden, J. E.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


McAdden, S. J.
Redmayne, M.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wall, Major Patrick


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Remnant, Hon. P.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Renton, D. L. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


McKibbin, A. J.
Ridsdale, J. E.
Watkinson, H, A.


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Robertson, Sir David
Wellwood, W.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Robson Brown, W.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Roper, Sir Harold
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wills, G.


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Russell, R. S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.



Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Mr. Kaberry and




Mr. Richard Thompson.


Question put, and agreed to.

New Clause.—(ANNUITIES.)

(1) Where on or after the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, an individual has purchased an annuity to be payable either for a stated number of years depending on the survival of the annuitant, or during the lifetime of the annuitant, then for purposes of assessment to income tax, each periodical annual payment shall be divided into two parts, as follows:—
(a) a part representing the estimated capital content, which shall be exempt from income tax, and
(b) the difference, which shall be subject to payment of income tax at the rates in force for the time being.

(2) The part representing the estimated capital content shall be calculated by dividing the actual sum paid as the purchase price of the annuity (whether paid in a single payment or as a series of premiums) by the expectation

of life of the annuitant, as ascertained from a table to be prescribed from time to time by the Treasury.—[Mr. E. Fletcher.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of the Clause is to change the present provision of the law with respect to the treatment for tax purposes of purchased annuities. As the Financial Secretary will be aware, the Clause is inspired by one of the recommendations in the Second Report of the Millard Tucker Committee published in February this year, which deals with the taxation of provisions for retirement.
This will be the only opportunity that we shall have during discussion of the Bill to comment on this very important Report which one distinguished journal of the Left described recently as being
… the most significant social document published in this country since the Beveridge Report.
It went on to say that whether the Report reveals an equally desirable tendency towards social democracy might be more dubious. There is no doubt that at some time this Committee, or indeed the House of Commons, will have to give most serious consideration to the social implications of the second Millard Tucker Report, which points out the very serious cleavage in the social status of those who enjoy pension rights and those who do not.
Perhaps the most revealing feature of the Report is that, as a result of the popularity of superannuation schemes, the working population is rapidly being divided into two classes—those who are dependent in their retirement on National Insurance schemes, and those who enjoy the infinitely greater benefits that are obtained from the multiplicity of pension schemes provided by employers. If the main recommendations of the Committee are implemented, they will produce greater uniformity in the benefits obtained by the latter class, and to that extent one of the results will be to aggravate to an even greater degree the rift between the class of persons who enjoy superannuation benefits of one kind or another and those who do not.
In moving the Second Reading of the Clause, it would not be right for me to venture any further into a general discussion of the very important questions which, sooner or later, will have to be debated by the Committee. I can quite understand and sympathise with the statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in his Budget speech, when he felt compelled to say that because the Report was published only in February of this year he had not yet had time to reach any conclusions on the main issue involved.
I feel very strongly that the specific and limited object which it is sought to be achieved by the new Clause, dealing with the tax treatment of purchased annuities, is a relatively simple matter which can be segregated from all the other recom

mendations of the Report. But the subject matter of the Clause seems to me urgent, and I hope that we shall find that it is non-controversial and that the Clause will be accepted by the Government.
This recommendation arises because my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), very shortly after assuming the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave a direction which brought this subject within the terms of reference of the Millard Tucker Committee. The Committee will be aware that, as the law stands at present, the basic rule is that an annuity is subject to tax in the hands of the recipient. In view of that, it is perhaps not unnatural to find that the Millard Tucker Committee said, in paragraph 477, that this matter was the subject of more representations to it than any other subject.
The present position is highly anomalous. Basically, any annuity purchased by an annuitant is subject to Income Tax. It is perfectly true that there has been a variation in recent years of that basic provision because the Court of Appeal decided that if an annuity were purchased, not on the life of the annuitant but for a number of years, the annuity received was taxable only in so far as it represented an interest content and that the part of the annuity referable to the repayment of capital cost of the annuity escaped taxation. Some doubt was thrown on that decision by a subsequent decision of the Court of Appeal but, nevertheless, the result of the earlier decision was that there has grown up, as the Financial Secretary will be aware, a rather complicated system whereby those who desire to purchase an annuity purchase what are called "split" annuities.
I am sure you will appreciate, Major Anstruther-Gray, that anyone who purchases an annuity does not want merely income for a limited period of years and then to be left without any income at the end of his days. The general object is to purchase an income for the rest of his life, the expectation of his life being a matter of such uncertainty. The whole object, in 99 cases out of 100, is to get security for the remainder of one's life. What happens at present is the very complex system whereby a great many annuities take the form of split annuities which, in essence, are two separate


annuities, one, following the decision of the Court of Appeal, being an annuity certain and limited to a definite term of years, and the second a deferred life annuity to commence at the end of the term if the annuitant should have survived to that date.
Under that scheme on the annuity for the limited period of years tax is payable only on the income content but not on the capital content represented by the annuity during its certain term of years. If the annuitant survives and the deferred life annuity takes effect, Income Tax is wholly payable on the whole of the amount received. That is a highly complicated and very expensive system.
It was to deal with that situation and in the light of the many representations received by the Millard Tucker Committee that, after examining the history of the subject and noticing the ways in which it is treated in various other countries—notably the United States of America, Australia and Canada—that that Committee came to the conclusion that the present system in this country could not be defended and should be changed. The Committee take the view, which I accept, that it is really highly legalistic to say that when a person sinks his capital in the purchase of an annuity the source of his annuity is not his original capital but a contract with an insurance company. The Millard Tucker Committee, in Paragraph 497, say:
…in our view the reality and substance of the matter are that the original capital sum paid to acquire the annuity still remains a part of the source of the annuity, the remaining part being the interest earned by that capital, or by so much of it as from time to time remains not repaid to the annuitant.
They go on to say that they have examined the question whether any administrative difficulties arise in giving effect to what they think should be the solution, and they find that other countries, such as the United States of America, Australia and Canada, have all devised satisfactory methods, though differing in various details, for dealing with that situation.
I should, perhaps, here make it quite clear that in this proposed new Clause, we are dealing only with the cases of

annuities purchased by individuals themselves, and we are not dealing with the case of annuities which derive from superannuation schemes or insurance schemes of one kind or another. The Committee's Report recommends that
…in the taxation of purchased life annuities, the part of each periodical annual payment representing the estimated capital content should be exempted from tax, and only the difference should constitute taxable income.
The Committee analysed the more complicated subject of the methods whereby the two parts, one subject to tax and the other escaping it, should tie calculated, and they decided that the method employed in Canada works very well, always has worked well, does not produce any administrative difficulties and is a sensible way of dealing with the matter.
Therefore, my hon. Friends and myself, in framing this new Clause, followed precisely the system adopted in Canada and also the system recommended by the Millard Tucker Committee. I very much hope that, while we are awaiting with considerable interest the Government's general observations and conclusions on the other recommendations of the Millard Tucker Committee, the Government will see fit to give immediate effect to the recommendations which are implemented in this new Clause.
As the new Clause is drafted, it proposes that the new proposal shall apply to annuities purchased on or after 6th April, 1954. I do not attach any particular significance to that date, and I should be quite happy if the Financial Secretary would say that, if the law is to be changed, the principle should apply equally to annuities purchased before that date. It may be said that otherwise there would be injustice between those who purchase annuities in the future and those who have already purchased them.
10.0 p.m.
We all know the nostalgia with which the Financial Secretary used to regard anything which smacked of restrospective legislation, but in the debates on this Bill I have been pleased to notice how his education on this subject has developed. We had a fascinating exposition from him the other night in answer to an Amendment by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black). I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman now realises that the


scope of retrospective legislation in its objectionable form is much more limited than he formerly thought it was. I for one would not think that there was any objection to making this provision retrospective if that should appeal to my hon. Friends and to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I intervene to say a few words which might assist the course of the debate. As the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) knows not only is this matter one of the recommendations of the second Millard Tucker report, but it is also a subject which has been a matter of controversy for many years. I listened with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman said, especially with respect to the different treatment of purchased annuities for a term of years and for life. It is an important point. I agree that, together with the other Millard Tucker recommendations, it will have to be considered by the House of Commons at some time and in great detail.
The short point, however, is whether it is possible to deal with the matter separately and this year. I was glad to note that the hon. Member referred with some sympathy to what my right hon. Friend said on the point in his Budget speech. My right hon. Friend said:
There has not been sufficient time, since the publication of the Report, for me to reach any conclusions on the complex issues involved. In any event, the cost of the proposals would make it impossible for me to implement them in present circumstances. I shall not, therefore, propose this year any change in this part of the Income Tax system."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1954; Vol. 526, c. 224.]
We look at this matter with some sympathy, therefore, but from the point of view that these recommendations will have to be considered during the course of the year. The hon. Member suggested that it might be possible to separate this one and to deal with it separately. I put to him two reasons why it would be difficult to do that.
This proposal has a very close relationship with certain of the other proposals of the Millard Tucker Committee with respect to tax-free lump sum payments. It has the obvious connection that these payments could, and in many circumstances would, properly be used to purchase an annuity. It is impossible to deal with lump sum payments separately from the treatment of purchased life

annuities. One must consider them together.
Secondly, there is the question of cost. When these matters are reviewed by my right hon. Friend it may well be that the question of cost will make it impossible to do some of them. Therefore, there will be the question of weighing which is the most immediately desirable to be done. The hon. Member will appreciate that, if because a new Clause has been put down we arbitrarily select this proposal and put it into the law this year, that is not really a proper way to deal with these immensely important recommendations.
I do not need to add to what the hon. Member said. These matters are extremely important and stimulating to thought on what is, on the whole, one of the most difficult aspects of our tax law. I repeat, as my right hon. Friend said, that during the course of the year we shall give the closest consideration to these matters on their merits, their relative priorities, and their relative interactions on each other; but I do not think it is reasonable to ask us to pick this one out and deal with it now.
There is one further aspect which has some bearing. As the result of representations this proposal is, I understand, to be considered by the Royal Commission. We should not take a decision on this matter until we have the advantage of knowing also what the Royal Commission thinks about it.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: For myself, I do not find that reply good enough. Chancellors of the Exchequer and Financial Secretaries seem to me too often at this time of the year to resemble that famous centipede, which, being unable to decide which leg to move first, never moves at all. I have had that feeling over quite a number of the matters which the Committee has been considering this evening, but quite definitely over this one.
I shall not repeat what my hon. Friend so ably urged on the lines of the Millard Tucker Report as to the merits of the matter beyond saying that it seems to me to be an absurd anomaly that a man should be able to do substantially the same thing for himself by way of provision of an annuity for the rest of his life and have totally different results according to whether it is done by the type of split annuity to which my hon. Friend


referred or, as the plain man more often does, simply by buying an annuity.
I have in mind the case of a professional man who came to see me in Kettering. His happens to be a badly paid profession, and the Financial Secretary will allow me to follow the well known procedure of no names, no pack drill, and go no further into what it is. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) provokes me, so I will chance my arm. The man was a teacher.
The teacher had saved up for many years and bought an annuity. Partly, I own, as a result of the rise in prices, but also because of the incidence of tax on his annuity, he was simply not able to live on it. He said to me, "Is it not most unfair that when I have put my money up in this way, I should have to pay tax on the money itself when it is paid back to me?"
I agree at once that that is not the strictly legal view of the matter. The legal view is that one puts one's money up, one purchases an annuity and one's only rights depend on the annuity, and the common sense of the transaction, on that legal point of view, completely disappears. But it is a very real hardship on badly off and comparatively badly off people who are in some kind of employment or making a small amount of money in some way that they get an annuity for their old age and then have to pay tax on it. It is even more of a hardship if one is perfectly frank and says to them, "The trouble in your case is that you did not buy the right kind of annuity." That is a monstrous result.
I cannot see why the very moderate concession that is asked for in the new Clause could not have been made at once. If any concession at all is to be made, this surely represents the very minimum. It represents it on a point upon which the Millard Tucker Committee had more representations than on any other point. It represents it on a matter which for more than 100 years has been the subject of representations before one Royal Commission, Select Committee and the rest of it after another. It deals with a point which any ordinary plain man would say was a manifest piece of injustice; and why this cannot be put right at once and this Clause—for the very short distance

that it goes—accepted here and now, I completely fail to understand.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I wish to support the plea made that the Minister should reconsider the judgment he has given to the Committee that this matter ought to be held up still further. There are undoubtedly thousands of old folk in this country who are living on their superannuation allowance and who are now finding it difficult, because of the rise in the cost of living. Though the amount of this tax may, as a monetary figure, seem comparatively small, for those old people it is sometimes a matter of bread and butter and other essentials of life.
My own interest in this matter was aroused by a particular case brought to my notice as long ago as 1950. Then the need was urgent, and since that time, because the cost of living has been steadily rising, the need has become increasingly acute. The hon. and learned Member for Wellingborough—[HON. MEMBERS: "Kettering."] The hon. and learned Member for Kettering, of which Wellingborough is an important part—

Mr. Mitchison: Will my hon. Friend allow me to deny at once that monstrous suggestion, both on my own behalf and on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren)?

Mr. Brockway: I accept the correction at once. I would only say that if the hon. and learned Gentleman had suggested that Eton and Slough should not be combined, I should have resisted it as strongly as he has resisted my suggestion.
Seriously, the point I was making was that back in 1950 this was a severe burden to many old people in this country. In the particular case to which I am referring, the burden has become more and more severe, so that today it is literally a question of the first essentials of life and of decent living.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering remarked that this matter had been under consideration for 100 years. I shall go no further back than the appointment of the Committee on the Taxation Treatment of Provisions for Retirement, which was appointed in 1950 by the late Sir Stafford Cripps. It has undertaken a very detailed survey of this whole issue and its Second Report was


published earlier this year. If one could only understand that this is a matter of immediate need, week by week, then to have delayed for these four years is sufficient in itself.
I have communicated with the right hon. Gentleman on this subject more than once, and I wish to acknowledge that I had encouraging letters from him, and that the case put in those letters was forwarded to the Committee. I wish also to acknowledge that, as the time for the Budget approached and I wrote on this matter once again, I was again assured that the matter was under consideration. I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman when he outlined his Budget. It had passages of sympathy with the older people and they aroused my hopes, which were dashed when the Chancellor said that the recommendations of the Report on this point could not be implemented in the Budget or in the Finance Bill.
10.15 p.m.
There is not a case for saying that this recommendation should not be dealt with separately from the other recommendations. The point is only whether the savings of the old folk or the interest on those savings should be taxed. Hon. Members on the Government benches strongly denounce Members on this side who suggest a capital levy, but this is in effect a capital levy on those who can least afford to bear it, namely, the old folk who live upon superannuation allowances. This is a very simple proposition that tax should be levied not upon the actual savings but upon the interest on those savings. The justice of that is so clear and the proposition is so simple that I decline to believe the right hon. Gentleman when he said that this proposal could not be embodied in the Finance Bill.
For those reasons, I urge the Minister to reconsider the decision which he has announced. I make my appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is now upon the Government Front Bench. We have heard a plea for the old people frequently from the Government benches recently. The proposed new Clause gives the Government an opportunity to prove their sincerity in this matter, and we ask them to say that there should be priority for the old. We ask them to

support the plea made from these benches by accepting the proposed new Clause.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Financial Secretary will now be well aware of the very deep disappointment on this side of the Committee at the reply he saw fit to give to the proposal in this new Clause. Not only are we disappointed, but many thousands of people will be equally disappointed when they read in their newspapers tomorrow of the decision of the Government.
I, for one—and I take it that this is true of many Members on both sides of the Committee—have received letters from those who desire to take out annuities of this kind. They are by no means well-to-do people and are a section which we should seek to help at the earliest opportunity. I cannot help contrasting the way this Clause has been treated by the Government with the way that the same Government, not many hours ago, treated proposals from their own side of the Committee relating to Estate Duty on family businesses, and to the avoidance of duty by individuals who took out several life assurance policies.
The people with whom we are now dealing are unable, owing to their financial circumstance, to take advantage of the provisions which are to be written into the Bill as the result of pressure on the Government from their own back benches last night. We think it extremely hard that there should be this differentiation, and we must voice our protest at the attitude of the Government towards the proposal.
I do not desire this evening to make a long speech—in fact everything which is worth saying has already been said by my hon. Friends behind me—but I wish to say how pleased I was when my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) paid a well-deserved tribute to Mr. Millard Tucker and the members of his Committee for their very valuable Report.
I know that the Chancellor intends next year, if he then still occupies his present office, to implement many of the recommendations contained in it, but it is only right and proper for us to take this early opportunity to pay our tribute to those who have worked so hard 'to produce such a magnificent Report.
All that we are trying to do in this Clause is to help certain people to provide for their old age. There is nothing wrong about that. Hon. Members opposite find nothing wrong in individuals trying to avoid paying more tax than they need. We on this side of the Committee are not objecting to that, but we did hope that hon. Members opposite, equally with us, would not object to the proposal to help certain and mostly poorer sections of the community who want to provide for their old age. It is in the interest of the State and of the community at large that they should be assisted so to do.
In our opinion, this is a non-party proposal. Many proposals that are from time to time made from both sides are quite definitely political in their intention, but this is something of which, I believe, the whole Committee approves and wants to see implemented. I find it difficult to accept the reasons for refusal put forward by the Financial Secretary tonight. He argued that the Chancellor had not had sufficient time during which to study this Report. It was, I believe, issued last December, and I imagine the Chancellor had it fairly early in January. The Finance Bill was not produced until April, and we did not debate it until May.
It appears to be argued that that was not sufficient time for the Chancellor, with all he has to do, to study such complicated recommendations as these. But, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) pointed out, this particular proposal is almost as old as the hills. It has been discussed in and out of season for years by everybody interested in this kind of thing, and it was obvious from all that we knew, and from all that I am sure the Chancellor knew, that he could have made up his mind, and should have done so, whether, in fact, the Report came into his hands in January or only in February or March.
Canada, Australia, the United States, and other civilised nations have considered this matter, and have come to a decision upon it. The facts are well known and have been so known for many years. Therefore, we find it difficult to accept the excuse made by the Financial Secretary that the Chancellor

has not had time to consider the matter. At the same time we do realise that there are other recommendations in the Report, some of which do connect in some ways with this one, but this is nevertheless one of the utmost priority. It can be singled out, and we suggest that it should be.
Strongly as we feel on the matter, we do not intend to divide the Committee on this new Clause. At the same time, I would warn the Government with all the strength at my command that we shall seek to return to this matter on Report in order to test whether the House as a House shares with us the desire not to wait another year.

Mr. Austen Albu: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer saving up all these concessions for the Budget which will take place before the next General Election?

Question put, and negatived.

New Clause.—(RELIEF FROM FIRST ASSESSMENTS ON TRADE, &C., IN ISLES OF SCILLY.)

Where a person is charged to income tax in the Isles of Scilly for the year 1954–55 under Case I or II of Schedule D in respect of a trade, profession or vocation not carried on by him elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and on a claim made for the purposes of this section within twelve months from the end of that year it is proved that the actual profits or gains of the trade, profession or vocation for that year are less than those by reference to which tax falls to be charged in respect of it' for that year, then
(a) that person shall be entitled to such relief from income tax, other than surtax, as will reduce the amount of income tax, other than surtax, payable to the amount which would have been payable if the tax had fallen to be charged by reference to the actual profits or gains for that year; and
(b) if that person is an individual or a partnership of or including individuals, any individual concerned shall be entitled to such relief from the surtax, if any, payable by him for that year as will reduce the amount of surtax so payable to the amount which would have been payable if the tax had fallen to be charged as aforesaid.—[Mr. G. R. Howard.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Clause is consequent upon the decision of the Government, thought unfortunate by some of my constituents, to


tax the Isles of Scilly last year. It is designed to bring them into line with the mainland as regards taxation.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Copying, or perhaps not copying, the example of some hon. Members I propose to speak only for one minute to say that the Government will accept this Clause. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) had a very difficult time during the last Finance Bill in dealing with problems connected with the taxation of the Isles of Scilly for the first time. He bore his troubles with an exemplary patience, and was not provoked by the arguments which I was obliged to use.
The case he puts forward is very simple and perfectly legitimate. It is in the interests as much of the Treasury as of his constituents. I think that the choice which he suggests should be given to his constituents is very reasonable and I have pleasure, therefore, in accepting the Clause.

Mr. Charles Williams: As one who has probably had as much experience of the West Country as most, I should like to thank the Chancellor for his courtesy and for the consideration which he has given to the Scilly Isles which, after all, contribute no inconsiderable part to our production. I should also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) for the fine, persistent fight he has put up for his constituency. He has certainly achieved a very considerable Parliamentary victory.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 159 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1952.)

Section one hundred and fifty-nine of the Income Tax Act, 1952, shall be amended by the insertion after the words "his residence and his work," of the words "or
(c) that no public transport services normally operating and usable by the claimant operate immediately before or immediately after the claimant's working hours, and that as a result the claimant operates a vehicle or motor-cycle in order to get to or from his place of work."—[Mr. Snow.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Julian Snow: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I hope that the present mood of the Chancellor will persist and that this Clause also will be accepted. It arises out of a case which was recently drawn to my attention. An employee of a big industry was, on alternate weeks, on duties which necessitated his reporting for work after public transport had stopped, and coming off duty before public transport had started. The man sought, through his employer, the advice of the local tax inspector. He was advised that although he was subject to an expense in travelling to his place of employment—which happens to be a railway—he did not fall within the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1952, because there is no allowance for travelling expenses from home to work.
In point of fact, this type of worker does not get any sort of comfort from the existing provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1952. For the reasons which I have given he cannot claim wear and tear and obsolescence allowance for any vehicle which he may have to purchase and use, nor can he claim any sort of allowance under the replacement or renewal provisions of the same Act.
10.30 p.m.
There is a third and rather more delicate and obscure system for which, again, he does not appear to be eligible. That is to say, certain industries, as I am given to understand, rather than upset the existing wage structure, have come to an arrangement with the Board of Inland Revenue whereby any additional expense in travelling, which is incurred because the place of employment is further distant from the home than originally was the case, is borne by the employer and the employer pays the taxation due direct to the Inland Revenue. That is all very comforting to employees whose industries have come to such an arrangement with the Board of Inland Revenue, but it does not apply in the case of British Railways.
The Chancellor and the Financial Secretary have had a very long day—two days, in fact—and I do not want to labour this point or to read a long extract from a letter on this case, but it seemed to my hon. Friend and myself that this difficulty might be overcome by the suggested new Clause which would be an addition to the existing provision of the Income Tax Act whereby if, through causes of war, a residence has become


further away from the place of work than would normally be the case, there is an allowance of £10 a year. It is thought that this modest suggestion, to give this type of employee relief, would meet with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman.
I should explain also that in this case it is rather a far-fetched argument—and, therefore, I would not attempt to use it—that this is a result of war. In this case a man was transferred to work at Fratton in the Portsmouth area, having previously worked at the Seven Oaks branch, on the same line. By virtue of being transferred he tried to find new accommodation nearer to Fratton, was unable to do so because of the housing difficulty, and his present place of residence is, in fact, approximately nine miles away from his place of work. He goes on duty on alternate weeks before the public transport starts, and comes off duty after it has stopped. Therefore, he has been obliged to purchase a motor-cycle, and under the existing law he can obtain no relief at all. For that reason this new Clause is moved, in the hope that it will meet with the approval of the Chancellor.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manniurigham-Buller): The hon. Gentleman has raised once again the theme of an allowance for expenses of travelling from home to a place of employment. We have debated that theme, I think, on a number of occasions, and I should think the arguments are fairly well known on both sides of the Committee. I do not propose to go into it in detail tonight, but merely to point out that it would be a radical alteration of the Income Tax law to allow such expenses, which are really personal expenses, to be deducted.
This new Clause makes an addition to Section 159 of the 1952 Act—the provision whereby £10 a year might be allowed to taxpayers assessable under Schedule E for travelling expenses. That allowance was introduced to deal with the cases where additional costs were incurred because either the residence or the place of work had changed through circumstances connected with the war. Therefore, the problem which the hon. Member advanced has really no connection with this provision.
Whatever may or may not be done in the future about expenses of travelling to

and from work, I hope I shall carry the hon. Member with me when I say that it would be wrong to make changes piecemeal. To adopt this proposal in the new Clause would create anomalies and lead to demands that the relief should be extended to what may be claimed to be analogus cases, or cases where the hardship is said to be of the same order.
The Clause proposes to limit the relief to cases where the claimant cannot use the ordinary public transport services because of his working hours and, in consequence, has to use a vehicle or motorcycle, but a similar claim could be put forward for relief by a man who works quite normal hours but lives in a remote part of the country not well served by public transport even during normal hours. It would be proved difficult, logically, to resist such a claim.
I feel that it would be wrong to deal with these cases on their own. If there are to be changes made in the long-established principle of tax law that personal expenses in getting to and from work are not deductible it would be much better that that should be made as a general change rather than as a piecemeal change, as put forward in this suggestion. I hope that with that explanation the hon. Member will withdraw the new Clause, although I appreciate the reasons why he has put it forward with such clarity.

Mr. Houghton: There are many difficulties about this new Clause and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has dealt with quite a number. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) will not wish to press it because we understand that it would have repercussions which would be extremely difficult to control without making other provisions. But I think we can impress on the Committee and on the Chancellor the need for looking very seriously later on this whole troublesome question of expenses of getting to and from work, and its connection with Income Tax.
There are many aspects which need to be examined. Probably the Radcliffe Committee will be devoting some study to this matter. While it is true that the proposal is a radical one it has the merit of being only a little cost because of the limit of £10 which has been mentioned.


Secondly, although I agree that Section 159 deals mainly with matters arising out of the war, my hon. Friend and I thought there was no harm in bringing the war to an end for the purposes of accommodating the addition of this new Clause.

Mr. Snow: May I ask the Solicitor-General whether, in the public interest, he will confirm or deny one piece of advice which I am given to understand was intimated to this employee by the local tax inspector? That is to say, that where a car is used by a director to get to his place of business and then used for business purposes during his normal hours, regard is taken, in so far as tax allowance is concerned, not only of the actual mileage while on business but in respect of getting to the place of business? It may be that he misunderstood what the inspector said, but it should be clearly stated that there is not one category for the employer getting the allowance whereas the employee does not get it.

The Solicitor-General: I can answer that quite briefly, because recently I was engaged in a case which dealt with car expenses. The law is that the expenses of taking one's car to one's place of employment are not deductible.

Mr. Snow: With that explanation, beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

First Schedule agreed to.

Third to Sixth Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported with Amendments; as amended to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 137.]

SLAUGHTERHOUSES BILL [Lords]

Order read for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

10.43 p.m.

The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): I beg to move,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House, in respect of the Amendments to Clause 3, page 4, line 10; Clause 5, page 6, lines 6 and 33; Clause 11, page 11, lines 15 and 35; and new Schedule (Special saving for certain slaughterhouses licensed or registered before 1st October 1939), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Major G. Lloyd George.
The reason why I am asking the House to agree to re-committal is because I undertook to consider further two of the points raised when the Bill was in Standing Committee dealing with issues affecting compensation. Since the Committee stage, a third point has also come to light, and I will, with permission, explain it in detail when we come to the Amendments. None of the Amendments enlarges the field of compensation, nor do they increase the amount of compensation.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir RHYS HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Clause 3.—(GRANT AND RENEWAL OF LICENCES.)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, at the end, to add:
(5) The provisions contained in Schedule (Special saving for certain slaughterhouses licensed or registered before 1st October, 1939) to this Act (being provisions which, in relation to slaughterhouses, reproduce in a modified form and with temporary effect the enactments mentioned in paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection) shall have effect with respect to slaughterhouses to which those enactments apply.
(6) Where a person was immediately before the commencement of this Act authorised to keep any premises as a slaughterhouse by virtue only of a notice served on him under subsection (3) of the said section fifty-seven (which makes a local authority's notice to carry out works equivalent to a temporary licence), that person shall for all purposes of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, and this Part of this Act be deemed to be the holder of a


slaughterhouse licence in respect of those premises limited to expire at the end of six weeks beginning with the date of the commencement of this Act.
This Amendment has two purposes. The first subsection refers to the new Schedule—(Special saving for certain slaughterhouses licensed or registered before 1st October, 1939). In Committee upstairs my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) raised the question of one category of slaughterhouse, the so-called pre-1890 slaughterhouse, which enjoys in perpetuity the right to a licence, subject to the local authority being satisfied as to the occupier, and subject to the occupier meeting the requirements of the local authority in the matter of maintenance, repairs and structure.
It was pointed out that by the process of delaying an application on the part of the owner occupying such a slaughterhouse it might be possible to exclude the slaughterhouse from the ambit of compensation. That is not the intention. The Bill ends perpetuity of licence and places these slaughterhouses in the same category as other slaughterhouses. The procedure, broadly speaking, is to give such licence holders an opportunity up to the end of this year of making an application and so reduce, indeed remove, the risk, that they might suffer the injustice of being excluded from the compensation provisions.
The additional subsection (6) is designed to meet a very small point. It is that under the existing law, in respect of the pre-1890 slaughterhouses, where the authority requires repairs and alterations of structure to be undertaken the licence is deemed to be in force while the licensee is carrying out those modifications. On the coming into operation of the Bill, a period of six weeks is provided for such interim licences to bring the slaughterhouses within the ambit of the new Schedule which appears on the Order Paper.

Mr. Alfred Robens: We had a good discussion on this subject in Committee, and I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has been able to bring forward at this stage the necessary additional Amendment to the Clause to provide for these older slaughterhouses. We

welcome these provisions and have no objection to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(COMPENSATION FOR CLOSURE OR REFUSAL OF LICENCE.)

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 6, line 6, to leave out "March," and to insert "January."
The Amendment is intended to meet a small point. A number of local authorities passed resolutions on the subject of no more slaughterhouse licences early this year at a time when, in fact, slaughterhouses were not being licensed because they were not being used for the purposes of the Ministry of Food. Clearly such slaughterhouses should be brought within the ambit of compensation. In inserting the word "March" in the Clause we assumed that the slaughterhouses covered by such action on the part of the local authorities were covered by the Clause. We find that one local authority passed a resolution somewhat earlier, and therefore we propose to insert "January" to cover that case.

Mr. Charles Royle: I do not know whether this is the moment to raise the whole question of compensation or whether you prefer, Sir Rhys, that it be dealt with on the Motion, "That the Clause as amended, stand part of the Bill." I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one or two questions on the subject.

The Deputy-Chairman: It seems to me the whole question could be raised on that Motion.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 6, line 33, to leave out from the beginning, to "where," in line 1, on page 7, and insert:
(6) In ascertaining for the purposes of this section what was at any material time the value of a person's interest in premises or land held therewith, the following provisions shall apply, that is to say:—
(a) the value of the interest at the material time shall be taken to be the amount which the interest would have realised at that time on a sale thereof in the open market by a willing seller;
(b) account shall be taken of the value of any plant or machinery, being fixtures, which were on the premises at the said time;


(c) in relation to the value of the interest before the event giving rise to compensation under this section in respect of that interest, it shall be assumed that the sale referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection would have been to a purchaser having reason to suppose that an application by him to tit:: local authority for the grant of a slaughterhouse licence in respect of the premises would be granted subject to the premises being, or being rendered. suitable for use as a slaughterhouse;
(d) subject to paragraph (b) of this subsection, no regard shall be had to goodwill or to any other matter not directly based on the value of the premises or land as such.
In Committee upstairs questions were asked from both sides as to the meaning of the compensation Clause and, in particular, whether in assessing compensation reference would be had to the premises as well as to the land and to fixtures, movable and otherwise. The Amendment is to meet an undertaking we gave that an effort would be made to clarify the position. It seemed wise to spell out in somewhat greater detail the compensation definition. That is the purpose of the Amendment.
I should add that it does not change the character or enlarge the field of compensation but that it defines it with greater precision. It will be seen that whereas in Clause 5 as it now stands there is reference to:
Rule 2 of the Rules set out in section two of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919…
in the Amendment the Rule is expressly set out so that there can be no misunderstanding about it. That is done in paragraph (a). In paragraph (b) there is a reference to plant and machinery, being fixtures. That is to make it clear, as was made clear upstairs, that compensation will relate to the loss of value in land, premises and landlord's immovable fixtures and not to movable apparatus, and so on, to be found in the slaughterhouse.
Paragraph (d) makes it clear that, in the assessment of compensation, what is taken into account is the loss before and after the ending of the licence, that loss being related to loss actually sustained in respect of land, premises and fixtures and containing no element of goodwill.
In paragraph (c) words are proposed to clear up a point which was discussed upstairs. The point was that a number

of slaughterhouses will be eligible for compensation although at the moment of determining the compensation they will not, in fact, be licensed. It will be recalled that a number of slaughterhouse licensees or non-licensees will have the opportunity, if they make application within a fortnight of the passage of the Resolution, to bring themselves within the ambit of compensation.
The doubt was whether, when the assessment of compensation is undertaken, those undertaking the assessment and examining the difference between the slaughterhouses before the day and after the day would reduce the amount of compensation because of the fact that before the day the slaughterhouse in question was not in possession of a licence. It is a small point, but it was felt to be a legitimate fear, and it is covered by this paragraph.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: I wish to say how grateful I am that the Government have met the various points raised on this side of the Committee, and, I believe, on the other side, in connection with the question of compensation. The Government have met all but one point admirably, and that is the question of movable specialist machinery. As they have met us so well on the other points, I do not propose to press them on that one. I thank them for what they have done.

Mr. Robens: I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has been good enough to produce this Amendment, which meets the points with which we were very concerned in the Committee upstairs, and I am glad of his assurance in relation to fixtures. It is a matter that we discussed and it covers the point that was raised in relation to things like electric saws, contributions to the purchase of which had been made by the Ministry of Food. The position is now quite clear in the Amendment, and we are ready to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Royle: We ought not to part with the Clause without asking the Minister questions regarding compensation. I agree with my right hon. Friend the


Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) and the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) that the Amendment which has just been written into the Clause is very good and is a real safeguard. We are obliged for it. But the time has now come when the Government should give the House and the country an idea of what this compensation means and an estimate of the total.
It is almost nine weeks since Second Reading, and during that interval the local authorities have been preparing for Monday, 5th July, and the reopening, on the Minister's own estimate, of something like 2,500 slaughterhouses. The Minister at this stage should have some knowledge of exactly how many slaughterhouses are to be opened next Monday if the Bill becomes law by that time. If so, he must also be in possession of the facts as to how many applications for licences have been refused. That in turn should lead the Ministry of Food to an estimate of the compensation that will be paid out to applicants who have been unsuccessful in getting their slaughterhouses opened. There are many ramifications to this question, and we know how local authorities up and down the country are behaving in very different ways as to the number of slaughterhouses that are being opened.
Sooner or later the Government, whether Tory or Socialist, must get down to the provision of an adequate number of public abattoirs and slaughterhouses. That is the ideal which the Minister avows is his aim, and it is certainly the policy of us on this side of the Committee. We have never believed in the reopening of great numbers of private slaughterhouses, as is now suggested by the Government.
When the time comes, the capital expenditure on the new slaughterhouses will be colossal. Some Government or local authority some day will have to face that vast capital expenditure, and it must be a burden on ratepayers and taxpayers. It is a burden that ought to be faced. But if we are to add to that ultimate burden by paying out huge sums of compensation, as is suggested in the Bill, that will be added to the bill for the large municipal abattoirs which ultimately will come. Therefore, before we part with this compensation Clause, the Committee

should have some knowledge of the Minister's estimate.
11.0 p.m.
I said on Second Reading that the Bill was a premature doctrinaire line which the Government were 'taking in their free-for-all policy. The Government are adding to the taxpayers' and the ratepayers' burden considerably by introducing this Bill at this time as part of their future meat policy. I say without hesitation that hundreds of traders who had slaughterhouses in 1939 had written them off. They had decided that the day of the small, miserable private slaughterhouse had gone. Many of these places have become warehouses or rubbish dumps.
Hundreds who were slaughterhouse licence-holders in 1939 have ceased to be in the business. Many of them are dead. Yet these miserable places, buried away in all parts of industrial and rural areas, are to be re-opened. Even worse, if they are not to be re-opened, slaughterhouses which have been written off are to be the subject of compensation at The expense of the ratepayer or taxpayer. I hope that before the Committee parts with this Clause it will be given some estimate by the Government of what the financial burden will be.

Mr. Ian Horobin: It may save the time of the Committee if I raise briefly a point which otherwise I shall have to raise on Third Reading. It is not narrowly concerned with the compensation to be paid for those slaughterhouses which are not re-opened: but, as the Minister has been asked to give an estimate of how many there will be under the Government's policy, I want to give him an opportunity to deal with an anxiety which is acute in my constituency. It is feared there that the Government's policy may lead to what may be practically a monopoly. I do not want to go into all the details which have been given to me, but people fear that they may be left with only one available abattoir, not counting the Co-operative's. The point may be more general than the fear in my constituency.
I hope that the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary, will be able to give an assurance that action taken under The Bill, which has to have the sanction of the Minister, will not be used to produce the unsatisfactory state of hundreds of


shops in an area being in effect tied to a monopoly held by one wholesaler.

Dr. Hill: Perhaps I might be allowed to deal with the questions directly concerning compensation, leaving the more general considerations to be dealt with on Third Reading. It is difficult to estimate the effect of the Bill in terms of compensation at the present stage. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) will realise that the compensation system of the 1938 Act provided for compensation of owner and occupier, in respect of losses sustained. This Bill provides for compensation in the case of a slaughterhouse which is closed because of redundancy following the establishment of a public slaughterhouse. That compensation is rigidly and narrowly defined.
On the general policy of moderate concentration, it is possible to form only the vaguest of estimates. Our estimate, and I severely qualify it because of the difficulties, is between £2 million and £3 million, half of which will fall upon the Exchequer, and half upon the local authority. So far as we are able to judge, the compensation commitment which follows from the passage of the Bill and subsequent events we estimate to be about £500,000, half falling on the local authority and half on the Exchequer.
Again, we find it very difficult to form an assessment until much more is known about the conditions of the slaughterhouses which have been opened. The question of the number of slaughterhouses being opened is relevant to what I have no doubt will be subsequently said and asked of the Minister. Some 2,300 licences have been issued in respect of individual slaughterhouses and some 2,800 applications are under consideration by local authorities.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: For England and Wales only?

Dr. Hill: Yes. I am giving the figures for England and Wales.

Mr. Royle: Does that mean that the estimate of 2,500 may be doubled?

Dr. Hill: It is impossible to judge the extent to which local authorities will defer a large number of doubtful or less satisfactory applications. I am giving the figures as they are. I should hesitate to infer from the 2,800 what proportion

of them will, in fact, subsequently be licensed; 2,300 is the number already licensed and 2,800 the number of applications under consideration.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary's difficulty. Can he indicate how many of the 2,800 are live applications and are actively being considered, and how many are what I may call "compensation" applications?

Dr. Hill: I cannot, in the nature of the case, judge the degree of liveliness of the applications. All I can say is that that is the number which it has been reported to us as under consideration. Perhaps the Committee will feel that this is sufficient information now, in response to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Salford, West, leaving any other questions over for subsequent discussion.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin), let me say that I am aware of the details of the Oldham difficulty. We have about a dozen difficult cases to settle. Perhaps it may not be appropriate now to go into a difficult local position. We are in communication with the local authority and have given it certain advice as to what we believe the legal position to be. As sometimes happens, the local authority has shown reluctance to accept it. The matter is being probed further and examined.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11—(COMPENSATION FOR CLOSURES OF PRIVATE SLAUGHTER HOUSES.)

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 11, line 15, to leave out from the beginning, to "where" in line 27, and to insert:
(2) In ascertaining for the purposes of this section what was at any material time the value of a person's interest in premises or land held therewith, the following provisions shall apply, that is to say:—
(a) the value of the interest at the material time shall be taken to be the amount which the interest would have realised at that time on a sale thereof in the open market by a willing seller;
(b) account shall be taken of the value of any plant or machinery, being fixtures, which were on the premises at the said time;


(c) in relation to the value of the interest before the event giving rise to compensation under this section in respect of that interest, it shall be assumed that the sale referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection would have been to a purchaser having reason to suppose that an application by him to the local authority for a registration in respect of the premises would be granted subject to the premises being, or being rendered, suitable for use as a slaughterhouse;
(d) subject to paragraph (b) of this subsection, no regard shall be had to goodwill or to any other matter not directly based on the value of the premises or land as such (3)
I need say no more than that this Amendment brings the compensation position of Scotland into line with the 'previous Amendment, which related to England and Wales.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 11, line 35, leave out "said Act of 1919," and insert:
Acquisition of Lands (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919."—[Dr. Hill.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New SChedule.—(SPECIAL SAVING FOR CERTAIN SLAUGHTERHOUSES LICENSED OR REGISTERED BEFORE 1ST OCTOBER, 1939.

1. The premises to which this Schedule applies are the following, that is to say:—
(a) premises which were on the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, registered and in use as a slaughterhouse; and
(b) premises in respect of which a licence without limitation of time authorising their use as a slaughterhouse was in operation on that date and which were then in use as such.

2.—(1) Where at any time before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-five, an application is made to a local authority for the grant or renewal of a slaughterhouse licence in respect of any premises to which this Schedule applies then subject to the next following sub-paragraph and to any resolution of the authority which may have taken effect under section sixty-one of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, or under subsection (2) of section four of this Act, the authority shall not refuse the application unless they are satisfied that—
(a) the premises named in the application are not suitable for use as a slaughterhouse; and
(b) it is not reasonably practicable to render them suitable for such use.

(2) If before the application was made the authority have passed such a resolution as

is mentioned in the foregoing sub-paragraph, but the resolution has not taken effect, the authority may if they think fit adjourn the application pending the decision of the Minister of Food whether or not to approve the resolution.

3—(1) If the authority are satisfied that the premises are not suitable for use as a slaughterhouse but determine to grant or renew the licence, they may in doing so serve a notice on the applicant specifying the works which are in their opinion necessary to render the premises suitable as aforesaid and the period (not exceeding three months from the date of the grant or renewal) within which they require those works to be executed.

(2) The authority may at any time extend the said period if the works have been begun and appear to them to be making satisfactory progress.

(3) If at the expiration of the said period (whether or not extended under the foregoing sub-paragraph) the works have not been completed to the satisfaction of the authority, the authority may cancel the licence in respect of the premises (if it is then still in force).

4. Where a local authority serve on any person a notice under the foregoing paragraph or cancel a licence thereunder, all the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, relating to appeals against the refusal of a local authority to grant or renew a licence under section fifty-seven of that Act shall apply as if the notice or cancellation were such a refusal.—[Dr. Hill.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

New Clause.—(CHARGES IN RESPECT OF PUBLIC SLAUGHTERHOUSES.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a local authority who have provided a public slaughterhouse may make charges, according to scales determined by them from time to time, in respect of the use of the slaughterhouse or of any services provided there.

(2) Every scale of charges determined by a local authority for the purposes of this section shall be published by them in at least one newspaper circulating in their district and in such other manner (if any) as they think expedient for informing persons interested; and a copy of every scale of charges so published shall be sent by the authority to the Minister of Food.

(3) If it appears to the Minister of Food that a scale of charges determined by a local authority for the purposes of this section is in any respect unreasonable, he may, after consultation with the authority, direct them—
(a) to make such alterations in the scale as he considers appropriate, and
(b) except with his approval, not to depart from the scale as altered for such period as he may specify;


and the authority shall comply with the direction.

(4) The following enactments shall cease to have effect, that is to say:—
(a) paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section sixty of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938 (which enables local authorities with the approval of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to make charges in respect of a public slaughterhouse provided by them); and
(b) so much of any local Act or statutory order as authorises a local authority to make charges in respect of a public slaughterhouse or to make byelaws for that purpose.—[Dr. Hill.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I would explain to the House that this Clause is in response to a number of suggestions and a number of views that were raised upstairs that the local authorities' scales of charges should be subject to the approval of the Ministry. It was thought desirable to embody in the Clause the procedure to be followed—and here, as the House will appreciate, one requirement is publication in a newspaper—and secondly, to make unnecessary central reference and to adopt a procedure that the local authority may lay down a scale of charges and report them to the Minister. If it should appear to him, on perusal or in response to any representations made to him, that the charges are unreasonable, then, and only then, would the Minister intervene.
Thus we have a simple procedure to achieve the object of the Committee upstairs, and one which reduces the amount of work involved. It will be seen that it clears up the position in a number of areas where local councils have embodied rather rigid requirements for charges, these charges being out of date. In general, this does simplify procedure and saves a great deal of time.

Mr. Royle: I do not want to delay the House on this Clause for very long, but I should like to make one or two comments on it. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but, as I did not have the advantage of being on the Standing Committee, I am wondering whether it would not have been desirable for the Ministry itself to have laid down some guide on a scale of charges, rather than leave it entirely to local authorities.
Most of us know what has been going on in these past few weeks. As I said previously this evening, local authorities have very different ideas as to what should apply in reference to this Bill. I should have thought that it would have been a good thing, with the great change which is now about to take place, if the Ministry of Food gave a lead to the local authorities as to what the charges might be, with certain elasticity according to different parts of the country. This is very important indeed, because, when all is said and done, all these charges, which are to mount up, whatever the charge may be, are ultimately passed on to the consumer.
11.15 p.m.
Some of us on this side of the House are very concerned regarding what the price of meat to the consumer is going to be after next month. Nobody, apparently, has any idea at all at this moment what the price will be, and I am fearful as to the quantity of meat that some people in the industrial areas will be able to afford to buy. I am quite certain that many of them will not dare to go into a butcher's shop after next Monday.
If, therefore, these charges for this, that and the other are to be added, the cost of meat will be constantly rising to the detriment of the community. I understand that in some localities in the country the stall rents in the large abattoirs and the toll charges for the sale of the carcases are in some cases being trebled as against the 1939 figures. If these various charges are to be added to the consumer price of meat, then the situation is going to be a very difficult one indeed.
I suggest to the Minister that it might have been a very desirable thing if he could have checked this rise by insisting that the charges named in this new Clause should be limited and fixed to some degree by the Ministry itself. I am wondering whether that point of view has been considered, and, if not, whether it cannot be so considered at this stage.

Dr. Hill: With the permission of the House, may I say that it is felt that this question of charges is a matter which should remain for local determination in the light of local circumstances. There will be some slaughterhouses that cover a whole range of services and some


which are very much better equipped and which undertake a wider range of services than others. It is felt to be wise to leave the matter to local authorities, although that does not exclude the Minister later on, in the light of experience gained, helping local authorities who want guidance in this matter, or local authorities with different kinds of slaughterhouses offering different kinds of services as experience is gained.

Mr. Ede: Has the hon. Gentleman considered making these charges subject to confirmation by the Minister, as is done in a good many cases where local authorities are empowered to make charges? They make them, advertise them, and then there is a short period during which interested persons in the locality can object to the Minister when the charges are excessive. The Minister can then either confirm or amend the list of charges if he thinks fit.

Dr. Hill: If I may answer the right hon. Gentleman with the permission once again of the House, this is, in effect, to put the Minister in the position of confirming charges, except that he will not examine or modify them unless he is dissatisfied or unless representations are received by him which he considers to be powerful and reasonable. That is the position.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, at the end of paragraph (a), to insert:
including services of meat inspection.
A similar Amendment was moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Maude) but was withdrawn on the Minister's promise to look into this matter. As it stands, the Clause does not provide for the cost of meat inspection to be included in charges which may be made where meat is sent outside the area in which the beasts are slaughtered. As was stated in Committee, the result could be that a small local authority might be burdened with a rate of up to 4d. In my own constituency, meat inspection before the war was about 10 to 15 per cent.
During the course of this Bill so far the Parliamentary Secretary has emphasised that there will have to be very much more meat inspection than there was before the war and that to that extent the local authorities would have to bear that cost. Where the slaughterhouse is in the area of a local authority but caters for a much wider area, we think it is only fair that some of the cost of the meat inspection should be borne by that outside area.
It is to be regretted that the Clause deals only with public slaughterhouses, yet meat inspection at private slaughterhouses, bacon factories and so on will mean an additional rate of at least 2d. and probably 3d. I hope the time will soon come when the Minister feels able to give attention to this. Probably one of the reasons why meat inspection was not properly carried out in my home town of Redruth before the war was that the town suffered severely from unemployment and the local authority could not meet the cost. There has now been an increase in unemployment in the main industry of that town, and we feel that the cost of meat inspection should be shared out more evenly over the whole country.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. Hill: It might save time if I say at once, as I said upstairs, that I accept the general contention of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman). Under a policy of moderate concentration there will be instances where the slaughterhouse is within the area of a small, poor local authority while the product finds it way into the populous surrounding area.
I shall not engage in textual criticism of the Amendment, but I would say that this is not the appropriate place to deal with this question. It is now being considered in connection with the proposed new meat regulations, and we are, at this moment, in consultation with local authorities on the subject. I admit the hon. Member's point, and can assure him that we are now giving most careful consideration as to the best way of dealing with it under the meat regulations. I hope that, with that assurance, the hon. Member may be able to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Royle: This is not a one-man filibuster. I should like briefly to put what I consider to be important points. I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) on anything, because I like him so much, but this is a very important matter to the meat industry.
As the House knows, I have had some experience in this trade, but it is not necessary that I should declare an interest because I am no longer interested. I want to ask my hon. Friend whether it is right and fair that when a public service of this sort is undertaken in connection with meat inspection the trader should be responsible for footing the bill. These things are done in the public interest. It is a matter of public health, and if a trader goes into the market and in all good faith buys a beast from a farmer—and cattle may cost £100 a head and—then, having slaughtered it, in the interests of public health an inspector comes on to the premises and condemns the meat, the trader should not bear the loss. This is done in the public interest, and therefore the taxpayer or ratepayer should be responsible for the charge.
For many years there has been agitation in the trade with which I have been concerned, and this agitation has been based on compensation for confiscation. I believe that if these things are done in the public interest, then the public must foot the bill. The warranty should be given either by the producer, who is certainly being paid very well indeed for his cattle with Government help, or by the Government. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate this point and will see fit to withdraw his Amendment. In all fairness, this should be a public responsibility, and I should like to see this principle carried to the extent of compensation for all confiscation.

Mr. Angus Maude: As the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) said, this question was fully discussed in Committee on an Amendment which I moved and which my right hon. and gallant Friend undertook to consider between then and Report. I do not think that at that time there were many of us who would have agreed with the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) that this was a burden

which should be put exclusively on the taxpayer. The point which we had in mind was that, under the Bill as it was then drafted, certain local authorities were having a burden placed on them which was quite out of proportion to their ability to raise revenue. The suggestion that this should be the responsibility of the taxpayer was not generally accepted in view of the fact that the main beneficiary was, in the last resort, the consumer of the meat.
As to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Cam-borne, I did not myself put down an Amendment on this occasion because it has become apparent to me that this matter can be met by administrative action which will be perfectly satisfactory. As far as I am aware, the local authorities most concerned are at the moment quite satisfied that the Ministry are able to meet that point, and they have no further objection. In the circumstances, I hope very much that the hon. Member will feel able confidently to withdraw this Amendment.

Mr. Hayman: I hope the Minister will not accede to the blandishments of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West and, in view of the assurance which he has so kindly given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added to the Bill.

Clause 1.—(FUNCTIONS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)

Mr, Robens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, are you calling the Amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friends to page 1, line 13?

Mr. Speaker: That Amendment is out of order.

11.30 p.m.

Major Lloyd George: I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, at the end to insert:
(3) Where a local authority have (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) provided a public slaughterhouse in the exercise of the said power, or of any other power conferred by a local Act or statutory order, they may make such arrangements as they think expedient for securing that all the activities of the slaughterhouse, or any particular activities, are carried on there by servants or agents of theirs to the exclusion of other persons.


This Amendment deals with a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Maude) who referred to the matter on Committee stage and wanted to make perfectly clear that a local authority operating a public slaughterhouse on the line system could make arrangements to secure that all or any of the operations were carried out by its own servants or agents to the exclusion of other people. We think it desirable that local authorities should be allowed to operate public slaughterhouses in whatever way they think efficient, and this Amendment is to meet the point raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Speaker: I have just had handed to me a manuscript Amendment. Is it intended to be added here?

Major Lloyd George: There was another point raised, about which I think the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) was very worried, in regard to possible dangers in relation to certain facilities for ritual slaughter. I had assured him there was no such danger in this Amendment and that the whole purpose was to allow local authorities which believe in having the line system—which is to be encouraged—to provide those facilities. I gathered that the hon. Member was worried about this, and I was prepared to add certain words, with your permission, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: In addition to the words on the Paper, the Amendment would read:
Provided that a local authority shall not exercise the powers conferred by this subsection in such a manner as to deny to any religious community reasonable facilities for obtaining as food the flesh of animals slaughtered by the methods specially required by their religion.

Mr. Willey: This is the first notice we have had of this Amendment. We have not seen it on the Paper. As far as I can gather from having heard it, it is acceptable and desirable—I am speaking of the manuscript part of the Amendment—but I would emphasise that the Opposition is labouring under some disadvantage in regard to this Bill.
I make no complaint about this, but we did our utmost to expedite the consideration of this Bill in Committee. We

were assured on several points that the matter would be further considered, and we assumed, therefore, that we should have a further opportunity of discussion when the Bill came up for recommital and Report. As far as I understand it, there are several matters we shall not have an opportunity to discuss on which the Minister gave assurances. The Minister gave an assurance on this question, and I think he has endeavoured to meet the assurance he gave.
If this satisfies my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) and he has had an opportunity of consulting those concerned, I think we could accept it, but I do not know if he has had such an opportunity. But if it be that he has not had an opportunity to consult those who are directly affected, I think we should adjourn further consideration of the Bill, because I would emphasise that on this Bill we did our utmost to expedite the proceedings. But I must complain that on several points there has been no further consultation with us on the particular matters we raised, and I understand that we are going to have no opportunity to discuss them. We have had no pre-warning either of the particular wording, and it is a matter of some importance.
I concede at once the Government's difficulty. This must be law by Saturday, but really this is not the way to conduct Her Majesty's business. We have complained before about the dilatory manner in which this Bill has been handled, and I would say on behalf of the Opposition that it has not been fair to us, as this Bill could have been discussed last week, if other matters had not then been discussed. The Government knew this had to be passed by Saturday, or presumably some people might be open to possible proceedings, and I make that general point.
But if my hon. Friend can say that those who are directly concerned about it will be satisfied with this wording, it would not be for me to object to I do know, because my hon. Friend told me, that there have been anxious discussions about the actual wording of the Amendment. If he is not satisfied, and wants an opportunity to consult those interested parties affected, I think we must press for an adjournment of the further consideration of the Bill.

Mr. Barnett Janner: It is a little difficult, as I think the Minister will appreciate, for one to be able to be sure about the exact meaning of the wording of the Amendment which he handed in just now without having read it, and I am afraid that my hon. Friend is trying to put upon my shoulders a responsibility which I could not altogether accept. On the other hand, I do want to express my thanks to the Minister and his colleagues for their attempt to meet the points have been discussing with them and which they undertook to meet during the Committee stage.
Subject to my taking a further look at the wording of this particular Amendment—I do not mean this evening—and subject to the Minister being able, as I think he is, to correct the wording of the Amendment if it becomes necessary in another place, I would say at this stage that I am prepared to accept it myself, and I thank him for having given the matter his consideration.

Mr. Maude: I only want to say very briefly that, since this Amendment does completely meet the point of the Amendment which I moved in Committee, I am extremely grateful to my right hon. and gallant Friend, who has met us so completely, and I hope that the House will accept it.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: During the Committee stage it fell to my lot, by reason of representations that were being made to me, to inquire into the conditions behind the Amendment, the principle of which was accepted, even though the Amendment was withdrawn in connection with the control of servants in slaughterhouses by the municipalities, and I raised the question of ritual killing. I hope the Minister will pay some attention. I hope he will pay much more attention to what I am saying than seemingly he took of his promise when it was in the Committee stage.
We are entitled to make the justifiable complaint at this stage that a promise was made to the whole Standing Committee and the Minister has done nothing at all about it. Tonight the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has had to put forward a manuscript Amendment and that, from the point of view of efficiency on the part of a Minister who is in charge of a Bill, is most reprehensible.

I must register my protest against the almost callous indifference of the Minister in this matter.

Captain Duncan: I utter one word of warning about the Amendment. It does not meet entirely the wishes of certain members of one of the trades that are interested in slaughtering. I agree that there is a case for exclusive rights in line slaughtering, but the whole idea of greater freedom of slaughtering in the future was that there should be greater facilities for all. It is felt that local authorities should have sufficient facilities to enable butchers to slaughter their own animals if they so wish. I know that with line slaughtering that is not possible, but in other cases it is.
I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend will watch this matter in the future and will see that the legitimate wishes of local butchers are met. One of my hon. Friends has already complained of a case of monopoly, and I have heard of another alleged case. It is sub judice, and therefore I cannot go into it in detail. There are cases where local authorities want and are given monopoly powers, but certain butchers complain that that does not meet their legitimate wishes.

Mr. Robens: Is the hon. and gallant Member saying "lion" slaughtering, to make up the deficiency in line slaughtering?

Mr. Royle: I should like to support the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan). I hope that with the manuscript Amendment the word "may" in the Amendment on the Order Paper will be operative and that local authorities will have the power to allow the private trader who wants to slaughter his own cattle to slaughter them in the public slaughterhouse. I am all for safeguards, and there is nothing like a public abattoir for providing them, but I want the private trader who wants to slaughter his own cattle to have the right of access to these slaughterhouses.
The hon. and gallant Member for South Angus spoke of line slaughtering. I know that he means mass production. [An HON. MEMBER: "Mass destruction."] The man who is slaughtering two or three cattle a week for his own shop will certainly give much greater attention to the cattle when they are alive and to their dressing than will the man who is doing


this work by mass production methods. Let us make no mistake about that. I am against the small slaughterhouses. I am against a man slaughtering in a small place without the necessary supervision, but provided he has right of entry to the new slaughterhouses he will do a better job than the other man. Therefore, I want the word "may" in the Government Amendment to be operative so that there shall be that right of entry.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I suggest that it would be wrong not to accept the intention of the Amendment proposed by the Minister. There are dangers in a too-liberal interpretation of the word "may." It may be that in some districts at the moment controversy and dismay would be caused. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) is a practising butcher and knows that I have had some experience in this direction. After a lapse of 14 years, I assure him that he will not find many private butchers whom he would trust to slaughter cattle either in a public or a private slaughterhouse. My hon. Friend laughs at that, but he knows that it is true. I congratulate the Minister for moving the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(CHARGES FOR USE OF PUBLIC SLAUGHTERHOUSES.)

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, to leave out Clause 2.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3.—(GRANT AND RENEWAL OF LICENCES.)

The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I beg to move, as a manuscript Amendment—

Mr. Willey: On a point of order. Are we to understand that the only Amendments to be called on Report stage are those which are in manuscript form? May I point out that we have had no notice of them?

The Solicitor-General: I understood that the hon. Gentleman had been supplied with copies of these drafting Amendments by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon). They deal with

purely drafting alterations. As I can explain shortly, they make no material alteration to the Bill. I thought that the hon. Gentleman had agreed to that Course.

Mr. Willey: It is true that the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) mentioned the matter to me in the Library a short time ago, but that is not the concern of the House. If the Government take the responsibility for moving manuscript Amendments they should have the courtesy, which is their bounden duty, to notify the Opposition, especially as this is the second occasion on which we have had a manuscript Amendment tonight. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to leave it to his hon. and learned Friend he should do so, but if this is a Government Amendment notice by a back bencher is surely not notice for and on behalf of the Government.

The Solicitor-General: I thought that not only had the hon. Gentleman seen the Amendments, but that he understood them and agreed to them. If he objects to their being moved by the Government I have no objection to their being moved by my hon. and learned Friend. We will accept them. They are purely drafting, but if the hon. Gentleman objects I will not move them.

Mr. Willey: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that I said that I understood them. I did not say that I accepted them. I was not in a position to accept them. I said that I clearly apprehended them and that I was obliged that he had pointed out their effect. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that that courtesy was shown to me as one interested in the Report stage of the Bill who had Amendments down to it. I made it clear that I was obliged to him for giving me prior notice of his intention.

Mr. Julian Snow: On a point of order. What is all this that is going on? We have conversations in the Library between a back bencher and an hon. Member on the Front Bench on this side of the House. We hear vague allusions to ritual slaughtering and to these conversations. Are not back benchers entitled to know


what is going on? This is a curious procedure on a Bill which I understand has to be law by Saturday. The House is not being treated courteously, and we ought to know what is going on.

Mr. George Wigg: Before we go on, can we have an assurance from the Government Front Bench that these Amendments have been certified by the 1922 Committee? Otherwise, the House will find itself in a most undignified position. We will accept the Amendments, and then the Prime Minister will come down and say that we must go back on them. We ought to know where we stand.

Mr. Robens: I must enter a very strong protest at the way the Opposition have been treated. On Second Reading we indicated a number of points of disagreement, and we felt that it was as a result of muddle in the Government that the Bill was produced at all. Nevertheless, we realised that it had to be facilitated so that derationing and decontrol could take place on the due date. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you have ruled all our Amendments out of order, so that we cannot discuss many matters of great importance, and now we are faced with two manuscript Amendments of which no notice whatever has been given. I should have thought that the Minister of Food, who is responsible for the Bill, would have had at least the courtesy to indicate to me some of the contents of the manuscript Amendments in view of the fact that we have tried to facilitate the Bill, although we do not accept the necessity for it, for reasons which we previously gave.
I wonder whether you would accept a Motion, Mr. Speaker, "That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned." This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. It shows the complete muddle into which the Government have got. I object strongly to back benchers having conversations in the Library by chance, and then finding the Government sponsoring the result of a casual conversation. At the same time, we are well aware that that is the kind of un-business like way in which the Government have been doing their job, and I protest very strongly indeed.
I therefore beg to move, "That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned."

Major Lloyd George: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman takes this attitude now, because I readily acknowledge that both he and his hon. Friends have been very helpful in getting the Bill through Committee upstairs. They have acknowledged the need for it, and I readily acknowledge the help they have given.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that no discourtesy whatever was intended by me with regard to the first Amendment in. particular. I was under the impression, quite sincerely, and until this evening, that the purpose of the Amendment to which the first manuscript Amendment was moved had nothing whatever to do with anything other than line slaughtering. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) had misgivings as to the effect it might have on certain forms of religious slaughtering, and I have done my best, as he knows, to try to get a form of words which would remove his doubts.
I was only able to get the form of words just before we came in to this discussion. I handed it in as soon as I possibly could, and I assure the House that there is no question of discourtesy. It is an attempt to meet a point which I did not think was a point of substance, but I did my best to meet it. That is the only reaso. for trying to meet a back bencher on the other side. Back benchers on this side too had a point of concern, of which, I understand, notice was given. As regards the first one, however, for which I am responsible, I do not think there is any need for me to apologise. It was a genuine attempt to meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, and that was all that I attempted to do.

Mr. Willey: With respect to the Minister, I do not think we have had an adequate reply. I do not wish to accuse the Minister of discourtesy. He has been most helpful over this Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary has afforded me information on matters about which I have made inquiries. The point with which we are dealing is that the right hon. Gentleman gave an assurance that he would look into the point dealt with on the last Amendment; yet we find nothing on the Order Paper. Now, at a very late stage of the day, which is indicated


by the fact that the Amendment is in manuscript form, the Minister has been convinced that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) was justified in his misgivings. Otherwise, he would not have brought forward the Amendment.
But legislation is not the prerogative of one of Her Majesty's Ministers. I am complaining that I, as an hon. Member of the House, have not had an opportunity fully to consider a matter which is difficult from the point of view of drafting, and about which there has not been an opportunity for consultation. There would have been plenty of opportunity for consultation if the Minister had put the Amendment on the Order Paper. The various people affected could then have consulted their advisers.
The mere fact that the Solicitor-General was prepared to move the Amendment means that he was satisfied about it. He has not had an opportunity of consulting the Government, or of consulting his colleagues. I doubt whether he has had an adequate opportunity to consult the Minister in charge of the Bill. I can only assume, from the fact that the Solicitor-General rose, that the Minister was not cognisant of the effect of this proposed Amendment, was not in a position to explain it, and left it to the Solicitor-General. However, the Solicitor-General has not the prerogative of legislation. It does not lie with him, but with the House.
It is intolerable that the Committee should not be afforded an opportunity to discuss an important point affecting a Measure which is to come into operation on Saturday. This is not a straightforward matter, for the Parliamentary Secretary will be embarrassed by the Amendment, as during the Slaughter of Animals Bill he expressed a point of view on this particular point. [Interruption.] I see that my hon. Friends do not know what it is, because they have not had the advantage of a conversation in the Library with an hon. Member from the Government benches.
If I ask him to do so, will the Parliamentary Secretary express an opinion on the Amendment? He could not. He does not know what it is. If he knew what it was he would want to consult the reports of the Slaughter of Animals

Bill during its passage through the House. This is an affront to the Committee. We know that the Government are getting increasing difficulties in their ranks, and want to contain discussion. May I ask whether we can have an assurance from the Government that this will be the last manuscript Amendment that will be moved? I was given warning that there will be a further Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "oh"] I have only been notified in general terms that there might be an Amendment. I have looked at the Order Paper, and it is not down. That is why I inquired of you, Mr. Speaker, whether we have a new procedure for the purposes of the Bill, and whether we are to consider only manuscript Amendments.
12 midnight.
The Government have been criticised time after time about the Bill, not only within but without the House. The trade, the local authorities, and everybody affected have complained of the Government's not affording proper opportunity for the decontrol of meat to be carried out. In those circumstances, I should have thought it was an especial duty of the Government to ensure that there was adequate and proper notice to everyone affected. We have disagreed with the principles behind the Bill; we are most critical of the way the Government have conducted themselves. Nevertheless, we took up a public-spirited and responsible attitude, saying, "Although we criticise what you are doing, we shall do our utmost to facilitate the progress of the Bill, so that it gets on to the Statute Book in good time."
It is intolerable therefore for the Government to come here with a succession of manuscript Amendments without consultation. On matters on which the Government promised reconsideration, they have done nothing. There may be adequate reasons for doing nothing. I have complimented the Minister on his courtesy and help on many matters, but the Government have not consulted us on this matter, and we do not know whether they have consulted the local authorities, the butchers and others affected in the trade. We are kept in a state of complete ignorance. The least the Government could do would be to accept the request made by my right hon. Friend and to say, "We are awfully


sorry. We have made a mess of this matter. We shall adjourn, and start again after we have had discussions on the Bill."

Mr. Jack Jones: I support the Motion to adjourn consideration of the Bill to consider the position. On the back benches here we should like to know exactly what we are discussing. We hastened through the Finance Bill, and through very important parts of it, so as to get time on a Bill which we understand is of vital importance and which should be law by Saturday next. It is just turned midnight, and I sit here listening carefully about a farmer who sold a cow for £100 to somebody who found out that it had pimples and ought not to have been sold. The farmer has walked away with a hundred quid, and the taxpayer pays the difference.
Then we had a difference of opinion between two hon. Members on the other side of the House. Then we had the story that the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) had had a quiet word with the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), and that as a result the latter has asked the Government whether it will be quite all right if something goes into the Bill. That appears to be the situation.
I am not at all surprised that people think that the Members on the Government side are not worth more than £1,000 a year, if that is the way they conduct their business. We are entitled to have the constitutional practice followed, be it ever so bad.

Mr. Snow: May I call attention to the fact that the Chairman of the 1922 Committee is not present. Perhaps if he were, he could clear up the position.

Mr. Jones: If the Chairman of that Committee were brought into the picture he, at his worst, could not have made a bigger bungle than the Government have made of this business. He has been very busy making sure that people of our type should not be here to correct people of that type. Let us be kind and not bring him into the picture.
Seriously, this is a question of constitutional procedure. Are Members of this House to be expected at midnight to accept without demur or objection manuscript Amendments so that the law can be anything and we do not voice our

opinion on it? I protest against that on behalf of the back benchers. On behalf of the back benchers, I raise my appeal most strongly.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I want to supplement the request that we sit again and that we go home now and think again on this present position. I want to call the attention of the House to the fact that this Bill went into Committee on 11th May. We finalised the Committee stage on 18th May. From 18th May, we have heard nothing more about this Bill until three days before it is actually to apply in the country. Questions were raised in the Committee stages and when this Bill was first brought to the House.
The Minister, who has de-rationed meat and de-controlled meat, came here hot and bothered because, after doing that, he realised that he had not the time to put the Bill through. Then, after a hurried Committee stage, five weeks elapsed before we finalise the Bill and bring it before this House. Then he wants to say, in effect, that he has not had time to deal with the whole of the matter. For what else does this mean, except a confession of inability to deal with the provisions of the Bill in that time?
I suggest that we on the back benches want to consider this matter. There are some things we would like to ask the Minister, things he promised to answer, but there has been no report of them—such as the relationship between the trade unions and the employers in regard to wages and conditions which were applied; we do not know even now if they are going to apply—important matters concerning the application of the Bill.
Instead of that, by backdoor methods, the Minister brings along manuscript Amendments, about which we have had no time to consult our colleagues, about which we know nothing. It would be only decent and honest for the Government to accept my right hon. Friend's Motion.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I hope the House will not create a turmoil about this rather small matter. As I understand the situation, it is this: that the Bill as it is now before us makes it quite clear that there is an unfettered right of appeal in this matter. But, somebody raised the question as to


whether another form of words might not make it more abundantly obvious. My advice is that as it now stands it is quite clear but that it was out of a superabundance of caution, as I think is the word, that a slight change, which is nothing more than a drafting Amendment—

Mr. Willey: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me? I appreciate that he has not had advice from Parliamentary draftsmen on this and is at a disadvantage. I assume that is the case, because I think he would have expressed himself more lucidly if he had had advice from Parliamentary draftsmen.
Surely he would agree this is more than a point of drafting. There is a substantial difference—one can take one view or another—between the words "if they are not satisfied," that is to say if the local authorities are not satisfied—the Solicitor-General knows this point well enough—and the words "It does not appear." That is a point which is argued repeatedly.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is anticipating the discussion on the Amendment.

Mr. Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman has really only reinforced my point that the object which my right hon. Friend had in mind was to make it a little more clear than it now is. When one uses the word "drafting," it does not mean that one just changes half a sentence or a comma, but that the same intention is made more clear in other language. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen to me, because he personally was made aware of this point earlier on.
However, it is not a matter of any great substance. We are quite satisfied that the words in the Bill are adequate, and, as I say, it was only a superabundance of caution that made it possibly desirable to change it in this way. But, as the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends take exception to that, we do not propose to move the manuscript Amendment, because we are satisfied that the original drafting carried out the purpose we had in mind.

Mr. Willey: It is a waste of time.

Mr. Crookshank: It is not a waste of time.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: On a point of order. The Leader of the House says that he has no intention of moving the Amendment, but I understood that it had been moved.

Mr. Crookshank: Therefore, as I say, we are quite satisfied that the original drafting of the Bill carries out the intention, but, someone having suggested that it might be better to put in other words, we thought that the House would like to accept the alternative. However, that not being agreeable, we do not want to waste time on the matter, and therefore I hope that this Motion can now be withdrawn so that we can get on with the business, because the reason for moving the Motion to adjourn the House does not now exist. We do not propose to move the manuscript Amendment.

Mr. Robens: The Leader of the House is an exceptionally busy person running between Committee Rooms and this Chamber and the Cabinet Room, and I want to recall one or two things to him, because he has obviously not been fully informed. In the first place, whether the manuscript Amendments are moved or not is of no interest to us whatever, because they are to meet the wishes of Tory back benchers and not of hon. Members on this side of the House. What we object to is the fact that manuscript Amendments should be introduced as though it were a paper chase.
The point I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman is that this was really a back-door method on the part of the Government to introduce these Amendments because they were only put down yesterday by two back bench Members of the party opposite. They are starred on the Order Paper. Mr. Speaker has ruled that all the Amendments which we put down are out of order, and, therefore, he would have been compelled to rule that the Amendments put down by the two hon. Members opposite were also out of order. But in an endeavour to put them in order, the Minister or his legal hon. Friend decided to move them so that they might be got through in the guise of Government Amendments. That was a deliberate attempt to mislead the House.
Now that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House can leave his couch


where he has been sleeping peacefully for the last two hours in order to put this matter right, and can then tell us—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is apparent that hon. Members on the Government benches are a little tired and strained—from their faces one can see that they are in a ferocious mood—but I want to continue my point.
12.15 a.m.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, performing his duty of looking after the interests of all hon. Members, is now brought from his room to tell us that the Amendments to be moved by his legal Friend are now to be withdrawn. If the Government were not interested in these Amendments—not anxious about them—why did they take the responsibility from their backbenchers and waste the time of this House? [Interruption.] Why drag the Leader of the House into the Chamber when he has so many other things to do, and why keep us all out of bed for all this time when, in fact, there is apparently no interest on the other side?
I say that this was to be a back-door method of getting these Amendments through, because it is perfectly clear that these Amendments having previously been discussed, could not have been moved in this House except through Government channels. It is another example of the inefficiency and muddle of the Government, and of their policy of not letting their left hand know what their right hand is doing. Here they are, after all this time, now calmly coming to tell us that they do not want to move the manuscript Amendments—after we have protested. It is a condemnation of the way in which the whole process has been run. It would have been very much better if the Bill had been left to the Minister of Food and to his Parliamentary Secretary, who certainly know how to handle this very much better than the legal adviser they have been using.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn)rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, and negatived.

Clause 18.—(SAVINGS.)

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): I beg to move, in page 14, line 3, to leave out:
at the commencement of this Act,
and to insert:
on the twenty-ninth day of June, nineteen hundred and fifty-four.
Perhaps at the same time I may deal with the next Amendment in page 14, line 7.
These Amendments are necessary in order to preserve—

Mr. Royle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We on the back benches are in a fog. Are we having some more manuscript Amendments? Which Amendment is the hon. Gentleman moving?

Mr. Speaker: The Amendment which the hon. Gentleman is moving is the one to page 14, line 3.

Mr. Royle: It was not made clear.

Mr. Snadden: I am informed that the Amendment to page 15, line 18, is in consequence—

Mr. Robens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand that you are not going to call the Amendment to page 3, line 25, to insert paragraph (c), and are we to discuss at all the Amendment to page 15, line 18?

Mr. Speaker: It seems that there is an error in printing on the Order Paper. On my Order Paper the Amendment to page 15, line 18, is printed before the Amendment to page 14, line 3, but it is necessary to proceed in the order of the pages in the Bill. That is why I called the Amendment to page 14, line 3, before the one in page 15. We shall come to page 15 later.

Mr. Robens: Does this mean that the Government are deliberately misprinting the Order Paper? Does it mean that their inefficiency is now going into the Stationery Office? May I ask whether we shall have an opportunity of discussing the Amendment to page 3, line 25?

Mr. Speaker: That Amendment was not selected. It was debated in Committee and there was a Division upon it. Has the hon. Member the Under-Secretary finished moving his Amendment?

Mr. Snadden: I was in the course of moving it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Mitchison: Further to the point of order. The point of order, as I understand it, is this, that an Amendment appears on the Order Paper at page 15 followed by an Amendment at page 14. I respectfully submit that we must follow the order of the Amendments as they appear on the Order Paper, and that having proceeded to page 15, we cannot thereafter go back to page 14.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member is, I am afraid, wrong over that. The order in which the Amendments are discussed is governed by the order of the pages in the Bill.

Mr. Snadden: These two Amendments which I am moving, in page 14, lines 3 and 7, are on the same point, and, with the permission of the House, I should like to discuss them together. These Amendments are necessary in order to preserve the original intention of subsections (2) and (3), should this Bill by any chance not come into force before the date of de-control, as now appears possible. The intention of the subsection is to secure that slaughterhouses in operation during the control period should be continued without further formalities by way of making application for licences, but that slaughterhouses not in operation under control can re-open only if registered under the Bill.
In its present form, the Clause assumes that the Bill will be in force before decontrol takes effect. That seems unlikely, and these Amendments ensure that the benefits of the subsection are available only to slaughterhouses in operation on a date shortly before the end of control. The date of 29th June is chosen because the Ministry of Food will cease to use slaughterhouses on 1st July and we wish to be sure that this original intention of the subsection will be carried out if the Bill does not become law before decontrol takes place.

Mr. Willey: The Joint Under-Secretary will remember that when we discussed this matter in Committee I congratulated him on his lucidity and brevity. I am afraid I cannot congratulate him on his lucidity tonight. I can only assume that he is tired, but could he tell me if I am right in the assumption that the Bill as

originally drafted was amended in Committee on the very point he has raised tonight and he is now re-amending it back to the original form?

Mr. Snadden: Mr. Snaddenindicated assent.

Mr. Willey: I gather from the nods of the Joint Under-Secretary that I am right in that assumption. Although he was not so lucid tonight as he was recently, I am glad to have understood the purport of this Amendment. What is the position? Surely we are entitled to some explanation from the Government. They had one view a few weeks ago when we had Second Reading and another view a few weeks ago when we were in Committee upstairs. Now they come back and say, "We have another view tonight." Does not this action show that the Government are bungling and making a mess of it? Decontrol comes into effect this week-end—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Surely the jubilant hon. Members who welcome that are disturbed that the Government do not know where they really are and are anticipating that decontrol may come without the Bill being an Act and that steps may be taken which will put people at risk. It is really preposterous for a Government to slip in manuscript Amendments like this. I invite information whether there are to be any more, as there are still a few more Clauses.
We had one date a few weeks ago, another a few days ago and another date is in mind now. That is a reason for adjourning consideration of this Bill so that it can be considered more leisurely. If we could give the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his advisers an opportunity to think about this matter further we could know what they have in mind, but, in the absence of any clear thinking and inability to make up their minds, it means that, as the butchers say, there is a very real risk that there might be chaos in the next few weeks. It will be quite clear if there is chaos—which we on this side of the House want to avoid as much as anyone—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]. Surely all those hon. Gentlemen who have paid any attention to the progress of this Bill will agree that the Opposition has done everything possible to expedite its progress. In fact, we have wasted a lot of time tonight, because we have been obliged to


complain of the dilatory conduct of the Government—the Government which is under the dictates of the 1922 Committee.
12.30 a.m.
No doubt this Bill had first to be discussed by the 1922 Committee before further progress could be made. I do not know what handling the Joint Under-Secretary got upstairs last week, but I have invited the hon. Gentleman to inform me why he has had to put down this Amendment saying, "I was wrong when I advised the Committee." He has advanced no reason for being wrong, so I can only assume that he was told by the 1922 Committee that the Government should examine it and stick by the date in the Bill. That is what they have done—exposed the Joint Under-Secretary and made him a laughing stock. That is probably their purpose—probably they want to pillory the Joint Under-Secretary. Probably it was because I congratulated him on his lucidity in Committee that the 1922 Committee struck. If so, I apologise to him, but surely we have come to a sorry pass—

An Hon. Member: The Opposition are all in bed.

Mr. Willey: We have come to a sorry pass when Parliamentary courtesies react to the disadvantage of Junior Ministers. I very much sympathise with the Joint Under-Secretary in the position in which he finds himself, and fully understand why he was unable to be as lucid tonight as when he advised the Committee to take the opposite course when this Bill was in Standing Committee.

Mr. Royle: I am not surprised—[Interruption]. I shall be surprised if some hon. Gentlemen take their courage in their hands and go home. But I am not surprised that the Joint Under-Secretary has been handed this job. Some of us during the Second Reading debate and some of my hon. Friends on the Standing Committee did indicate that the words of the Bill were actually anticipated—

Mr. Hayman: As my hon. Friend is an expert butcher, could he take a cut off the Joint Parliamentary Secretary?

Mr. Royle: I was on the point of saying that, during the course of the Second Reading debate—[Interruption].

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I cannot hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mr. Royle: I was saying that during the course of the Second Reading debate many hon. Members on this side of the House and many of my hon. Friends in the Standing Committee later, pointed out that it would be necessary for local authorities to anticipate the will of Parliament, and I am suggesting that in the Amendments we are now considering there is the further effort to anticipate the will of Parliament. It may well be, if this Bill should fail to get its Third Reading and get on to the Statute Book by getting the Royal Assent, that slaughterhouses will be opened next Monday before the Bill is actually passed into law. I am suggesting that this is very sharp practice on behalf of the Government.
Some time ago, during the passage of the Raw Cotton Commission Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was compelled to apologise to the House and to introduce special legislation to cover himself because certain compensations had been paid out before the Bill became law. The House had to give special permission for that compensation to be legalised. This miserable Government are following that type of action with this Bill. It is less than nine weeks since we had the Second Reading. The result of the Government's miserable haste to get back to what they call freedom, the freedom of the jungle, has meant that in those nine weeks, except for a few days in Standing Committee, Members of this House have not considered the Bill. Now, within four days of the coming into operation of the Bill, we are discussing late at night an Amendment to protect the Government in case action has to be taken with regard to slaughterhouses before the Bill is passed.
This is a deplorable situation, I gather from one or two sentences uttered by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that he has some more manuscript Amendments. I am sure that he indicated that and then stopped in the middle of what he was saying. Are we to do a little anticipating and anticipate that in a few moments—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are dealing only with the one Amendment at the moment.

Mr. Royle: Thank you, Sir Charles. I shall probably deal with the manuscript Amendments if and when they appear, and I am sure that my hon. Friends will also do so. The only fair thing that the Government can do is to postpone discussion of the Bill, postpone its operation and show some courtesy to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 14, line 7, leave out from "which," to "shall," in line 8, and insert:
were in use as a slaughterhouse by virtue of that licence on the twenty-ninth day of June, nineteen hundred and fifty-four."—[Mr. Snadden.]

Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Dr. Hill: I beg to move, in page 15, line 18, at the end, to insert:
In section sixty, paragraph (b) of subsection (2).
In view of the remodelling of Clause 2, it becomes necessary to repeal the relevant subsection of Section 60 (2, b) of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938.

Mr. Wigg: Can we have a fuller explanation from the Minister?

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Surely we are to have more explanation than we have had so far. This seems to be a most important and very sinister Amendment which the Minister seeks to introduce at a late stage. I am sure that it will not have escaped your notice, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it is printed out of order on the Paper. Instead of being printed in its proper place it is printed above two Amendments which have already been passed. That is a most unusual circumstance, and we have not had an explanation why it has been printed in that extraordinary fashion.
In view of all the other evidence of muddle we have had on the part of the Government in dealing with the Bill tonight, at least we are entitled to an apology for misleading hon. Members by printing Amendments out of order on the Paper. When Mr. Speaker was in the Chair he ruled that even though all the Amendments on Report were printed higgledy-piggledy, in any order the Government liked, they had to be taken in their proper sequence. It makes it very difficult for hon. Members who are trying to do their duty when they have to go back to the middle of the Paper just because the Government have chosen,

contrary to all precedent of which I am aware, to put Amendments to page 15 in a higher place on the Paper than Amendments to page 14.
What irritates me most is to find that when we come to the Amendment we have no proper explanation and no apology from the Government for something which is a grave discourtesy, to say the least. The Parliamentary Secretary tried to burble out a few inconsequential remarks as if it were something which did not matter. Surely he must realise the consequence of the Amendment. It takes away from local authorities powers which they have enjoyed for a very long time. They are powers which local authorities throughout the country cherish.
12.45 a.m.
Since the Minister did not venture to give any proper explanation, I must detain the House for a few moments to explain the significance of the Amendment. Its purpose is to insert, at the end of line 18 in the Schedule,
In section sixty, paragraph (b) of subsection (2).
We were not told what Section 60 (2, b) was. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] We were not even told the Act to which it referred.

Dr. Hill: Oh, yes, you were.

Mr. Fletcher: We certainly were not told what were the words that we were being asked to repeal, What we are being asked is to repeal Section 60 (2, b) of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, subsection (2) of which states:
A local authority by whom a public slaughter-house has been provided under this section, or under any enactment repealed by this Act "—
that is, the Food and Drugs Act, 1938—
or by the Public Health Act, 1875"—
I said a moment ago that this goes back a long way. These are the relevant words that are now being repealed:
may make such charges in respect of the use of the slaughter-house as the Minister may have approved, or such less charges as they may from time to time determine.
Those words are now being repealed from the Statute Book. I ask why we have had no explanation.

Dr. Hill: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Fletcher: I will give way in a moment, because I am as anxious as everybody on this side that the Minister should have an opportunity to do himself justice. So far, he has failed to do so.

Mr. G. Lindgren: It is mercy he wants, not justice.

Mr. Fletcher: The Minister has a certain reputation to maintain. He is anxious to do himself justice, and he will have the opportunity to try to do so, but I want to make my point so that the Minister will be able to give a full and complete answer.
Why should local authorities, who have enjoyed this power for 75 years, now be deprived of the power to make these charges? I see that we have the assistance of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who is very concerned with the responsibility of local authorities. He is always telling us what great plans he has in his Department for reforming local government. We have been hearing about that for a long time. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will not sit silent while the House, without any proper explanation from the Ministry of Food, which is fast disappearing, takes away powers from local authorities.
We want to give more powers to local authorities. We believe in local government. It has a vital part to play in the life of the nation, and we believe in giving it extended powers. I do not like the idea of powers of this kind being taken away surreptitiously at the tail end of a Bill on Report stage, when the Government try to propose manuscript Amendments and then say that their proposed manuscript Amendments do not matter. This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, and my hon. Friends on this side will not be prepared to accept the Amendment from the Government until we have had a far fuller explanation.

Mr. Wigg: Mr. Wiggrose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member cannot speak a second time on Report stage without the leave of the House.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House proceeded to a Division.

Sir CEDRIC DREWE and Mr. OAKSHOTT were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Members being willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

12.53 a.m.

Major Lloyd George: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
Although when the Bill was in Committee there were not many Amendments moved, a number of points of importance were raised which I undertook to look into in the meantime. The Amendments passed tonight were drafted as a result of proceedings in Standing Committee. During these remarks I shall try to deal with other points which were raised during that period.
Clause 1 places responsibility on local authorities to provide slaughterhouses. That principle was generally accepted, but more than one hon. Member expressed the fear in Committee that some local authorities might not rise to the occasion, and that it might be necessary to provide for the Minister's direct intervention to secure that a local authority carried out its responsibilities. I did not feel able to accept that point of view, although I promised to consider any case brought to my notice where it was felt that a local authority might not have fully appreciated the requirements of the situation.
I asked local authorities to let me have reports of the action they were taking about the number of slaughterhouses licensed and about the number of applications being considered. The first reports I received related to the period up to the 15th May. Further reports have since come in, and I have the position as it was on Saturday, 26th June.
The Parliamentary Secretary gave figures during the Report stage of the position of slaughterhouses. I am glad to say that local authorities have tackled this very difficult task with very great energy. I hazarded a guess that possibly some 2,500 slaughterhouses would be required; we now have 2,300 already licensed, and applications for another 2,800 are under consideration. Nobody can say what the final figure will be, but I am satisfied that there will be sufficient slaughterhouses available for decontrol.
There may be difficulties in some areas. From our experience, I am satisfied that local authorities will continue their close co-operation and that we shall be able to overcome the difficulties. I have had correspondence with authorities in certain districts where traders felt that their


needs were not receiving adequate consideration and where authorities were deferring decisions on licensing. The House may like to know the position with regard to local authority slaughterhouses. For the purpose of the decontrol scheme, my Department have been holding about 300 slaughterhouses on lease or on requisition. Local authorities in the areas where these are situated were asked whether they might need them to provide facilities on decontrol.
The result of the inquiry is that of the 300 about 200 are not required by the local authorities, and are being returned to their owners by termination of lease or by derequisitioning. That leaves 100, of which I am glad to say that in 65 cases agreement has been reached with the owners whereby the local authorities will be able to take over the premises on lease. Negotiations are still proceeding in the remaining number. Where the premises are held on lease by the Government, we can assign or sublet them to the local authority only if the terms and conditions of the lease allow us to do so. In most cases it requires the consent of the owner, provided that it is not unreasonably withheld.
I hope very much that in the remaining cases we shall be able to get agreement and that it will not be necessary to resort to the courts, as that would only mean delay, which we do not want. In the few cases where agreement cannot be reached—I am glad to say that the number does not exceed a dozen—we may have no alternative but to maintain the requisition and to allow the local authorities to operate the premises as public slaughterhouses. The tenure, under cover of the Government's requisition, cannot extend beyond two years, but that should give abundant time.
I should like to say a word about the seven slaughterhouses which the Government have been building over the past few years. Our aim is to make these slaughterhouses, which were built to meet the needs of control, available to local authorities for use as public slaughterhouses at whatever may turn out to be their value under conditions of free trade. They have all been offered to the local authorities concerned. The one at Swindon is likely to be purchased outright by the authority, on the basis of the district valuer's valuation. Four

others, Canterbury, Guildford, Fareham and Salisbury, are being taken over by the local authorities on a rental basis for one year, at the end of which the purchase price will be determined. Negotiations with the two other places, Grimsby and Wimborne, are in progress, but decisions have not yet been reached. But, in any event, arrangements are being made, and I am sure slaughterhouse accommodation will be available.

Mr. Willey: Can the Minister indicate the basis on which the rental is determined—Whether it is on his valuer's basis or on the district valuer's basis.

Major Lloyd George: I will have that looked at. The real reason for the rental was that local authorities were a little bothered as to what the arrangements might be. The rental was to allow them to have some experience of the work under those conditions to give them a better idea of what the problems would be. At some slaughterhouses, the Government made improvements which had the effect of increasing the value of the premises. That will be taken into account when settlement is made for termination of the lease, or the termination of the requisition.
I have also been asked about the position with regard to the equipment which the Government have installed, cutting saws, weighing machines and so on. We have offered such equipment to local authorities, or to the owners of the slaughterhouses, at valuation.
I was also asked whether the Lands Tribunal was the appropriate body to determine compensation. This tribunal is appointed by the Lord Chancellor under the provisions of the Lands Tribunal Act, 1949, and its membership consists of lawyers and other persons who have had experience in the valuation of land. One of the tribunal's duties is to determine disputes ariving from compulsory acquisition of land by local authorities. It has all the legal, technical and other necessary qualifications for dealing with any compensation disputes arising from the Bill.
I think the Inter-Departmental Committee suggested, and it was referred to in Committee upstairs, that the local authorities have shown a desire to be able to meet their share of the cost of


compensation by borrowing powers. I have looked into this and I am assured that consent to do this may be sought under Section 195 (c) of the Local Government Act, 1933.
During the Committee stage, the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) raised the very important question about consultation with the branches of the trade unions in the discussions which the local authorities were asked to undertake, for example, in the case of a decision about the accommodation slaughter-men required. It was thought in some districts that there was no part trade unions could usefully play in such discussions. My Department has had some correspondence with the Trades Union Congress about these particular cases, and I hope that any difficulties which have arisen have now been solved. It has always been the practice of my Department to consult the Trades Union Congress on general principles on any matter in which trade unions are concerned. It is open to local branches of trade unions to put their views on slaughtermen's accommodation to the local authorities concerned. I am sure that local authorities in general would be willing to consider consultation.
In so far as local authorities may be engaged in operating slaughterhouses and in employing slaughtermen for this purpose, I should point out that any question of the terms and conditions of such employment will fall to be dealt with in the normal way through the negotiating machinery formed for the purpose. I hope that I have covered most of the points raised, and that the House will now give the Bill its Third Reading.

Captain Duncan: Could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give the figures for Scotland in the same way as he has given them for England and Wales?

Major Lloyd George: I will make inquiries. The Scottish position is different from that in England and Wales in that there are only two private slaughterhouses apart from some small ones in the Highlands. I gather that the position will remain as it is.

Mr. Jack Jones: Can the Minister tell the House the position in regard to the promise made to Scotland that it should have a different system from that in this country, that private enterprise would be allowed to participate?

Major Lloyd George: My information is that slaughterhouses in Scotland are open to everybody.

1.12 a.m.

Mr. Robens: I am sure that we are all very much obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for the information he has given us on the Third Reading. In the milder atmosphere that now prevails in this Chamber, we can perhaps get down to the serious matters which have concerned all of us and especially those who dealt with this matter in Committee. I am sorry that the interference, which may have been well-intentioned, by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's hon. Friends should have led to a great deal of time having been spent in another direction.
I agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the local authorities have done a remarkably good job in the short time that they have had. It is a very good thing that in this country we can always rely upon local authorities whatever their political complexion, to carry out their duties in the best public interest once a decision has been reached. Again we have an example of the excellent work done by local authorities on behalf of the Central Government.
The figures given by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman about licences is very interesting, because the Minister of State in another place gave an estimate of between 3,000 and 3,500. I think that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman thought that that figure was a little high, and that it might be about 2,500. It looks, however, as if the Minister of State's figure might possibly be correct, and that in the final analysis it will be something between 3,000 and 3,500.
It is on that one aspect that I wish to put one or two points to the Minister. We are not getting back to the pre-war position of 11,500 slaughterhouses, which is a good thing, but it must give the Minister a good deal of apprehension to see the number of slaughterhouses rise so very quickly from about 482, which I believe is the figure at the moment, to anything between 3,000 and 3,500, because it is perfectly clear that a good many of them cannot possibly comply with the conditions that he would desire.
I wonder, therefore, whether the Minister feels that this Bill provides him with all the necessary authority and


power to persuade local authorities to be fairly uniform in the application of bye-laws in relation to these new slaughterhouses. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember that we had a short discussion lasting about an hour or an hour and a quarter, on this very point when we were discussing an Amendment which sought to lay down certain minimum standards which the Institute of Sanitary Engineers had produced. Those men who are responsible for inspection are people of whom we should take some notice. The Minister did not disagree that some standards were necessary, but he did not feel that he could lay down national standards which would lay a statutory obligation upon local authorities. That being the case, may I ask the Minister—or the Parliamentary Secretary, whom I presume will reply at the end of what need only be a short debate—what the intentions are with regard to this very large number of new slaughterhouses which are to be licensed, which have not been used for many years and where conditions cannot be as we would like them.
What does he intend to do? He really has a responsibility. The new Food and Drugs Bill will presumably be coming before the House very shortly. It will be concerned with very much higher standards of hygiene in relation to food handling. Here, in the slaughterhouse, could be the origin of a good deal of evil with regard to the health of the nation. I know that, in another capacity, the Parliamentary Secretary will be one of the first to want from the hygienic point of view, a very strict examination of slaughtering. That means that the necessary facilities must be provided and that there should be no escape from certain essentials.
At the moment, local government responsible for the licensing of slaughterhouses has the responsibility for making its own bye-laws. It has also had guidance from the Ministry of Food and from previous Ministries of Health and other Ministries responsible for public health as long as 40 years ago. That guidance is very old now and certainly does not meet modern conditions. I therefore wonder if the Minister, if it is not within his own responsibility, would consult with his colleague whose responsibility it may be—the Minister of

Housing and Local Government or the Minister of Health, I am not quite sure which—as to whether new guidance should not be sent out. I think it would be very useful.
The last guidance was given some 20 years ago and that, I think, was based on some memoranda of 40 years ago. It must be out of date. I am sure that the Minister of Health must feel the very heavy responsibility he has, because so much damage can be done to the health of the nation if the inspection is not done adequately or sufficiently. It may mean recruitment of more sanitary inspectors. It certainly means better guidance to local authorities. If it is not within the power of the right hon. Gentleman or of his Ministry, I would strongly urge him to consult with his appropriate ministerial colleague with a view to sending fresh guidance to local authorities. I am sorry he could not see his way to putting it into the Bill. However, that is not a matter which we can now discuss. I plead with him to look again to see whether it would not be useful to send guidance to local authorities in relation to the essentials of the slaughterhouse.
I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the care he has taken in looking into the few points which I raised in Committee in relation to getting the cooperation of the workers in the industry as well as that of the local authorities and others. This is not a matter of the prestige of the trade unions but is really a matter of the public interest. It is now 15 years since a great many people who will now have to come into the business had any real, practical experience. As a result, there will be put on those skilled in the art of slaughtering and cutting up meat an extra burden of training younger people who have never had the experience.
I am most anxious that there should be the utmost co-operation between those who are actually doing the work and organising the trade unions, the local authorities, the local traders and all those who are associated in any way with what must be a very big task. I am very much obliged, therefore, to the right hon. Gentleman for having taken so much care in making certain that facilities exist for co-operation between local authorities and trade unions. I recognise that where


the local authority is the employer there is also adequate machinery for negotiation on wages and conditions.
It may be that a number of my hon. Friends will have a few matters to raise, but by and large we do not depart from what we felt about the Bill as a whole. We still feel that we might have had derationing first, and then decontrol. However, the Government felt that they could not do one without the other. We can honestly say that we have facilitated this Bill because we felt that it was in the public interest once the Government policy was declared, and I think we might have a shorter discussion on the Third Reading than was apparent about half an hour ago.

1.17 a.m

Mr. Hayman: The Government have caused confusion everywhere by the hasty way in which they have proceeded with this matter, and they have used the local authorities as a means of escape from their difficulties. Clause 1 puts the responsibility firmly on the shoulders of the local authority for securing the provision of the facilities that are necessary for slaughtering. The farming community is bewildered and confused, as anyone who has read the national and local newspapers must be very well aware.
I am glad that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) is here, because there is a peculiar difficulty in his division, which I am sure must be typical of many rural areas throughout the country. I have a newspaper cutting which is headed "Minister's 'Yes' to Abattoir at Madron." Madron is a small village just outside Penzance, and in that village there is a very old workhouse which has been a disgrace to the workhouse system and probably one of the worst in the whole country. It was handed to the hospital management committee when the hospital service was established. It was so bad that they got rid of it. Nobody wanted it. Every local authority considered whether use could be made of it, but that was impossible.
Then it was bought by private people, and recently the question of this place being used for slaughtering arose. According to the reports, the local rural district council turned down the whole

proposal. Later they reversed their decision. That brought a protest from the inhabitants of the village who signed it nearly 100 per cent. A petition bearing 260 signatures went to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, but apparently before he could give a reply the Minister of Food said that this slaughterhouse could be provided. That is, presumably, another example of muddle among Ministers.
But there is a serious side to this matter, because the local authority has three acres of land on which it proposes to build council houses, and these houses will immediately adjoin this dreadful building which is to become a slaughterhouse. The approach road to the slaughterhouse will be through the middle of this housing estate. The people in Cornwall have condemned this slaughterhouse in Penzance which has been a disgrace both under the last Ministry and under this present one. But local authorities in the Land's End peninsular are to get several slaughterhouses; I think there are to be 12. Why on earth, in spite of protests from the inhabitants of the village, should the Minister have approved of these licences being granted by the local authorities?

Dr. Hill: Approval is not necessary.

Mr. Hayman: It may be that the approval of the Minister is not necessary, but the Ministry of Housing and Local Government should see that it is necessary for it to take action. Because of the hastiness and ill-preparedness of the Ministry of Food in meeting this emergency, the people of Madron have to put up with this dreadful state of affairs. The Parliamentary Secretary pays frequent visits to Penzance to speak on behalf of his party there. I hope that when next he goes to Penzance to a public meeting he will have to answer for his misdeeds.

1.21 a.m.

Mr. Wigg: The reputation of the Parliamentary Secretary as a politician was preceded by his reputation as a doctor, and I should have thought that his knowledge of health statistics of this country before the war, when there was little or no control over slaughterhouses, would have urged him to be very careful in the introduction of this Bill.
Many a Tory fortune has been founded on slink meat, and many thousands


of people in the Midlands went to a premature death as a result of the policy in operation in slaughterhouses in the hey-day of Tory and Liberal England. I have read with great interest the reports of medical officers of health in my part of the country. In the early twenties report after report underlined the fact that large amounts of slink meat were being sold to the public. One of the great benefits which resulted from the public control of slaughtering and purchase of cattle was that that practice largely died out. It has also died out largely because of the reputation which has been established, but if this Bill is administered with the same competence as that in which the debate tonight has been handled by the Government, opportunities will again arise for this dreadful traffic in the sale of diseased meat.
I should have thought that when the Government set about reflecting on the problem which would arise from the decontrol of meat and the release of rationing, they would be faced with the problem of the effective control of slaughterhouses. This evening there was a second manuscript Amendment to be moved, and I would be out of order if I said anything about it, but it is a fact that in Scotland there is a movement to bring all slaughterhouses under public control. If they were under public control the sanitary inspector would have responsibility for observing these provisions and would be able to keep an eye on what was going on. I should have thought that we would have had a statement from the Minister of the considerations which led the Government to accept municipal control in Scotland but in England to adopt a contrary policy.
I can only hope that the Government will be courageous enough, if they find that the malpractices of the pre-war years again begin to emerge, not to hesitate to come back to the House of Commons and ask for an amending Bill. I should have thought the Government would have known of these cases, and would have come to the House and said that they knew about them, and that they existed before the war. The Minister of Health and his advisers know only too well, because what I am saying is to be found in the reports of the medical officers of health in all parts of the country. This practice of the sale of

diseased meat to the public went on on a widespread scale right up to the outbreak of the war, and it was one of the few blessings that came out of the war that it was stopped.
I would suggest that this ill-considered Measure is being rushed through the House of Commons because, for political reasons, the Government want to get on with their "first of July" and all the political advantages they hope to get from securing that the best cuts of meat go to all the best clubs and the best people. I prophesy that, as a result of this Bill, we shall find in the years to come a rise in the incidence of T.B. and those diseases which spring from the widespread consumption of diseased meat.
I would go so far as to say that if the Government and the local authorities and the reputable butchers are not watchful, the consequences of this Bill—the name of which should not be the Slaughterhouses Bill but the Slink Meat Charter—will be serious. We have not had a word from the Minister about what steps he intends taking to prevent the sale of slink meat, and I regard this as a dereliction of duty. I hope very much that, even at this eleventh hour, we shall get an assurance from the Minister that he will watch this problem and that if it shows any sign of being as formidable in the future as it was in the past he will come back with an amending Measure.

1.27 a.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I do not wish to detain the House for more than a moment, but, as the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman), who unfortunately did not give me notice that he was to raise this, has spoken about a matter in my own constituency, it is only right that I should have a word to say myself. The fact is that to both sides of this dispute, who, of course, have consulted me, I have made it perfectly clear, and they agree, that this is a matter for them to resolve. It is not the duty of a Member of Parliament to intervene in an internal dispute of the local rural district council, some members of which agree with one course and some of which agree with another. As my right hon. and gallant Friend knows, I have presented a petition, without taking sides in this dispute, which is purely a local council matter, and many of us feel that


it is rather better for Members of Parliament to keep to their own jobs and to leave local authorities to deal with theirs.

1.29 a.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: As one who represents an agricultural area, I have been watching this Bill go through the slow processes in the House, and I think those hon. Members who represent areas where farmers and others have to earn their living should point out, now that we have reached this stage of the Bill, certain factors of great importance.
I am convinced that I shall be proved right in a few years in saying that the Bill is an interim Measure which will have chaotic results. Neither the industry nor the Ministry have had a chance to estimate what facilities are necessary. Can the Minister tell us how many slaughterhouses we shall need? There were 11,500 slaughterhouses in Britain in 1938. Today we have 482, of which 119 are publicly owned. The Ministry of Food has put up five new buildings since 1950. Is it the intention of the Minister for Housing and Local Government to go forward with a policy of putting up modern slaughterhouses to deal with food in a hygienic fashion so that never again shall we have a recrudescence of that slink meat period that was experienced in North Staffordshire and elsewhere in the early 1930s? Will the Minister continue to carry out that policy or is it to be handed over entirely to private enterprise?
It was said in another place that we should need 3,500 slaughterhouses. The estimate made in this House was 2,500. How many are needed? This confusion is typical of the unplanned system that we shall have cast upon the public and the housewife. The local authorities will also suffer. Under the provisions of the Bill they can be called upon to provide compensation to owners of private slaughterhouses. That will be reflected in increased rates in districts such as that which I represent, unless we have a planned organisation of slaughterhouses.
The Bill means an extensive licensing of private slaughterhouses, and neither the meat trade nor anyone else can give the House an estimate of what is required. In the next few months we shall see a terrific battle between the farmer, the butcher and the auctioneer in the market places. Does the Bill guarantee

that slaughterhouse contractors will not make a subtle discrimination against one section or other of private or public enterprise? Are we guaranteed that the Co-operative movement will have exactly the same opportunity of constructing first-class slaughterhouses as any private company that may be formed in the district? The Bill gives owners the chance to recover the cost of modernisation, but no-one in the House seems able to say how the arrangement will work and how the cost of modernisation will be recouped.
The final point which I wish to make is one in which I have been interested for years. The very first Question that I put on the Order Paper when I had the privilege and honour of coming to the House to represent the Leek Division asked the then Minister of Agriculture whether he was prepared to investigate the possibility of establishing a national veterinary service on lines similar to those of the present National Health Service. That question is relevant to this Bill. A national veterinary service would be needed to check up on private and public slaughterhouses in this advanced age of hygienic food distribution. The rôle of the veterinary surgeon in the inspection of slaughterhouses is underestimated.
I am delighted to find that some progressive local authorities, such as those at Birmingham, Newcastle and elsewhere, have advocated that there should be some kind of national organisation for inspection, with veterinary surgeons having the responsibility of guaranteeing the standards of health and cleanliness of the slaughterhouses. However, there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that. There is nothing to stop private enterprise or even public enterprise—

Mr. Speaker: If it is not in the Bill, the hon. Member is not entitled to discuss it on Third Reading.

Mr. Davies: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but that is one of the reasons why I object to the Bill. I sincerely hope that the Government, who are freeing so many people, will give us a free road to decent food standards by investigating the possibility of establishing side by side with this system a national veterinary organisation for the inspection of slaughterhouses.
Under the Bill local authorities are obliged to provide adequate slaughtering facilities. How should they assess their requirements? Are they to return once again to the ramshackle empire of 11,500 slaughterhouses throughout Britain? How are they to ensure that the men in the butchering trade are skilled killers? Do we offer the opportunities for training in the meat trade today? These are questions which should be answered as we give this so-called freedom to the Government to establish once again high prices for the housewife, chaos for the farmer, discontent for the butcher and more worry than ever before for the local authorities, ultimately with an increase in rates when, in about four years' time, the Bill proves completely unworkable.

1.37 a.m.

Mr. Willey: Perhaps I might put a few more questions to the Parliamentary Secretary before he concludes the debate. First, I wish to make it clear that of course we were not critical of what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did to meet the demands of the Jewish and Mohammedan community. Our complaint was that the House had no opportunity properly to discuss it. I do not wish to put any personal blame on the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. It is unfortunate that those in charge of Government business did not afford the House a proper opportunity for discussion.
The House should note that we agreed to a new Clause which contains a reference to the Ministry of Food. It is now 29th June, 1954, and we are still legislating on the assumption that the Ministry of Food will continue. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to assure us that he is not making a fool of the House and that it is the intention of the Government to retain the Ministry of Food. The hon. Gentleman will remember that we had some discussion about this in Committee upstairs and his right hon. and gallant Friend was at pains to point out that he had never declared that he would abolish the Department but that it was his declared objective, which we appreciate, to abolish rationing. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will have the courage to say that, because it will put

him in a stronger position to deal with the 1922 Committee which might not have discussed the matter yet.
I put another question to the hon. Gentleman. He would agree that the provisions of the Food and Drugs Amendment Bill [Lords] are relevant to the Bill under discussion. Can he assure the House that we will proceed with this Bill and put it on the Statute Book this Session? Again, is he awaiting the instructions of the 1922 Committee? We are entitled to know. There has been reference to that Bill both during the discussion of the present Bill and during the discussion of the Slaughter of Animals (Amendment) Bill. These are complementary Bills, but it is now getting late in the Session. Can we be assured that the Bill to which we are now giving a Third Reading will be supplemented by a Food and Drugs Amendment Bill?
My third inquiry may be tedious, because it has been repeated several times during the debate, but we should not let the Bill depart without having the latest information from the Parliamentary Secretary as to the date when we may expect the final report of the inter-Departmental Committee. That is particularly important now, because we have the background to the position, in which a considerable number of applications are still under consideration.
I imagine that some local authorities are deliberately keeping applications under consideration because they are awaiting developments. They want room to allow extended facilities if they should be proved necessary. I may be asking for too much, but it would be of great practical advantage if we could have an indication of when the inter-Departmental Committee is likely to report, and in what kind of terms. Would it not be possible to have a further interim report to indicate, perhaps, the conclusions, if they have been reached, for a particular part of the country, or, alternatively, rather more details of the general basis upon which the Committee is working?
We are obliged to the Minister for the progress report he has presented to the House. He said that there are difficulties in some areas. I mention, naturally, the difficulty in my own constituency. I am not saying anything about the proposed


abattoir, because we have mentioned that before and we appreciate that it was not possible to proceed with its erection in time. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, we had three slaughterhouses. I am informed that two of them will be open, and the third closed. The overall position is that there will be 19 slaughterhouses.
The butchers—not the local authority—say to their members and their association, "Give the local authority power to requisition." We discussed that matter in Committee and it does not arise on Third Reading, but I presume that the Government still have powers of requisition. If it proves necessary—this will be proved one way or the other very soon—will it be possible for the Government to intervene to aid a local authority by exercising their own requisition powers?
The third slaughterhouse was regarded by the butchers as the most up-to-date and the most satisfactory. It has been returned to its original owners, who have decided—we cannot criticise them—that it shall revert to other purposes. The butchers are criticising the local authority, probably thinking that I have greater influence than I have with the Government. They believe that the local authority has requisitioning powers. The local authorities have not, but the Government has. Should it be necessary to intervene, will the Government use such powers to aid a local authority which might feel that it was necessary to maintain premises as a slaughterhouse?
We have information about the number of slaughterhouses and about the number of slaughtermen working in slaughterhouses which are open at present; but what will the position he regarding slaughtermen when we get a vast addition to the number of slaughterhouses next week? This is a matter which must cause anxiety to all concerned with avoiding unnecessary cruelty to animals. It is no answer to say, "Well, there are butchers." Butchers have not slaughtered since 1939. There must be a large number who have had no experience of it. What has been done about this? I am sure that those hon. Members, including the Parliamentary Secretary, who discussed the Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) will be horrified if the position next week is to

be that a large amount of slaughtering will be done unsupervised by people who have had no experience. We ought to be given some assurance about this.
The Parliamentary Secretary will, I am sure, agree that during the past few years there has been widespread interest in ensuring that all possible steps are taken to avoid cruelty. Responsibility in this matter rests squarely upon the Government. They have introduced this Bill, which was not essential to decontrol and derationing. The present system of slaughtering could have been gradually amended. Have the Government taken steps to offer technical assistance on a wide scale? Have they done anything to advise people who have not slaughtered before of the improvements in slaughtering brought about by the Ministry of Food since 1939?
I repeat my tribute to those in the Department who have been responsible for this. So far as sanitary inspectors, and such public officials are concerned, the Ministry has done a great deal to impart its knowledge to them; but has there been any arrangement for emergency measures to be taken to avoid cruelty? My impression is that the butchers do not think that will be so. One of their spokesmen assumed that there will be worse conditions than existed in 1939, before control began, thus all the progress made by the Ministry of Food will be lost, and that, until public authorities can exercise control, not only the slaughtering arrangements but the operations in some cases, will, unfortunately, be disgraceful. It is a pity that the Government have not shown more foresight in avoiding this position. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to do what he can to allay these fears and to tell us what steps have been taken in anticipation of them.
The Minister mentioned the new slaughterhouses. I was very glad to hear that five of them had been disposed of; it would be most unfortunate against the background that I have been describing, if the other two were not used. I gather that they will be used for the time being by the Ministry of Food for, to use the phrase that the Parliamentary Secretary used on another occasion, the Ministry is not getting out of the business yet. We want an assurance that these premises will be used. They must be used.


I know that local authorities are reasonable, and, when I note that these two slaughterhouses have not been taken over, I wonder whether there is any difficulty about rental. If the Ministry of Food were responsible there would be no difficulty about it, because that Ministry realises how important it is that the slaughterhouses should be taken over. Is our old friend the district valuer causing difficulty, or is it the Ministry of Works? In any case, I suspect it is another Department.
What is happening meanwhile in the areas served by those two slaughterhouses? The local authorities must be in a dilemma, and it would be a disaster if, because of delay in determining this question as between the Government and the local authorities, the latter allowed unsatisfactory premises to be opened as slaughterhouses in those areas. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary will do their utmost to get this position settled. Let us have it settled this week. The end of this week is the critical time. If unsatisfactory premises are opened unnecessarily because the facilities are fully used, it will be most unfortunate. I understand that in one of the areas there is a possibility of most unsatisfactory premises being opened unless this question is settled.
I do not think there has been any mention of the Fat Stock Corporation. The Parliamentary Secretary says it has got nothing to do with it. Of course it has got something to do with it. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary these questions: What licences have been obtained by the Fat Stock Corporation, and what approaches have been made by the Fat Stock Corporation to his Department regarding the new abattoirs built by the Ministry of Food? What has been the attitude of the Ministry of Food to the requests, if they have been made, of the Fat Stock Corporation?
A further point, which was mentioned on Second Reading, and which is relevant to these provisions regarding slaughterhouses, is transportation of meat. My recollection is that in Committee an assurance was given that this was being watched, and I think the impression was created that we would have a statement

before we parted with this Bill. What steps are being taken regarding the transportation of meat? That is essential to the question of licences. If we can make the transport of meat efficient and ensure that denationalisation of transport will not upset the efficiency of the transport of meat, then there will be a lesser requirement for licences. It is, I am sure, the wish of all of us—

Mr. Frederic Harris: On a point of order. There is nothing in the Bill about transport.

Mr. Speaker: I was waiting to see when the hon. Gentleman addressing the House was going to make any link between what he is saying and the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Willey: The connection was this. There are steps being taken regarding the transport of meat that affect the requirements of local authorities. But, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I have no wish and no intention of pursuing the matter further. If I have transgressed, I apologise to you and to the House.

Mr. James Hudson: Is it in order for hon. Members of the other panty to sit on this side of the House and to take part in the applause which comes from hon. Members on this side?

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing against the rules, and it is probably a very good thing for hon. Members to get a fresh view of the House from time to time.

Mr. Wigg: In reply to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Harris), may I point out that the Bill provides for securing that there shall be adequate slaughterhouse facilities available locally. It is quite clear that it is impossible for a particular locality to deal with supplies of cattle that may come into that locality. In fact, there is a constant move from place to place. It is one of the weaknesses of the Bill that it does not deal with that particular point. I submit that my hon. Friend was well within the rules of order in dealing with the question of the movement of meat from slaughterhouses to a point where it is to be consumed.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member himself realised that what he


had said so far was in order but that it must not be pursued too far.

Mr. Willey: Turning to compensation, which the Minister mentioned, I am obliged to him, because I think it was a point raised in Committee, for the information he has given, that use will be made of Section 195 of the Local Government Act, 1933. In view of the interest that the Government obviously have in the question of compensation, I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary will consider if, by administrative means, he could not register the number of licences and so on and get up-to-date information.
I gather that that is obviously the position at the moment. All that I am asking the Minister to do, in view of the fact that we are obviously interested in the question of compensation, is that he should keep up to date the information which he has obviously got today. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman informed the House—and we were much obliged to him for the information—that the compensation will run between £2 million and £3 million.
I hope that at any rate the Government will keep a survey and will keep in touch with such developments as happen subsequent to decontrol. I also hope that they will maintain the technical staff, or some of it at any rate, which they have at the Ministry of Food who are now the most informed people in the country on this matter, and will offer their advisory service to the local authorities after the date of decontrol so that the effective voice of the Government will be heard regarding grants and renewal licences.
I wish to conclude with a few precautionary words. As my right hon. Friend said, we have done our best to expedite the progress of the Bill, and we are not to blame if our good offices received such little response. We recognise our public responsibilities, and very much appreciate, regardless of party differences, the responsible attitude taken under the Bill, and which will be taken under it when it becomes an Act, by the local authorities.
I know of no local authority which has not earnestly endeavoured to fulfil and carry out the intentions of the Government. But the Government have by this Bill failed to face the fundamental problem which has been before us long enough. This Bill, although it has many

desirable features, is essentially the mark of a retrograde step, and it may well happen—though we all hope it will not—that on decontrol we shall face some very real difficulties.
I trust that the Government will, as I previously adjured them, bear in mind the final conclusion of the Inter-Departmental Committee which was that
Private slaughterhouses must not be allowed to slip back into the conditions of the pre-war disorders and numbers. Traders must, however, be given early notification whether they are to be permitted to resume private slaughtering or whether their needs will be met by the provision of public slaughtering facilities.

Brigadier Terence Clarke: After six years of Socialist rule.

Mr. Willey: The hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is sitting on the wrong side of the House, makes an understandable error. He probably does not realise that this is a Measure introduced by a Conservative Administration, but I should have thought that there was nothing in it which would particularly invite comment of that sort from such a quarter. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes, he will be able to take part in our discussions and thus prolong The debate. I am endeavouring to bring the debate to a termination, but it is quite clear that although that is my aim and intention we are quite prepared to discuss the matter further.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will pay regard to the very serious warning which comes, after all, from his own officials. They are saying, "All right, you can go ahead and set up all these slaughterhouses, but make sure that we do not go back to the disorders that we had before the war." Well, some of the butchers, through their spokesmen, say that the conditions which will obtain in these slaughterhouses will be worse than before 'the war, and they are right. The Minister of Housing and Local Government will know that they are right. Therefore there is really a burden on the right hon. Gentleman and on the Parliamentary Secretary to do what they can, after this Bill becomes law, to prevent things getting worse. We all realise that they will be bad enough.
Finally, I would say that I know the Parliamentary Secretary regrets, as I regret, some of the consequences of this step. He regards it as unavoidable.


Therefore, notwithstanding this step which he is taking, I hope that he will honour the assurance which his right hon. Friend gave, and has repeated, that as soon as we get the Inter-Departmental Committee report we shall proceed—notwithstanding the 1922 Committee—to an implementation of the policy of moderate concentration.

2.6 a.m.

Dr. Hill: I think that it will be agreed that of the points raised, the most important was that raised earlier in this debate on Third Reading by the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens)—public health precautions in slaughterhouses. He asked what the position would be. May I remind him that, as matters stand, the position will be protected by local authorities on the basis of Section 13 of the Food & Drugs Act, 1938, on the basis of the meat regulations made under Section 8 of that Act, and also—and here I come closer to the point which so disturbed him—on the basis of new model bye-laws which are now under consideration and which we hope shortly will be issued. We agree with him that the time has come for that. In that connection, as the right hon. Gentleman asked a question on the associated topic of the Food & Drugs Amendment Bill, may I carry it this far by saying that we hope that that Bill will be proceeded with this session. I use the words deliberately—we hope that that will be so.
On the further point that the right hon. Gentleman made as to the part played in this by local authorities, I wish most strongly to stress that local authorities have acted within their own areas and under their own responsibility, and have produced in the aggregate a much more satisfactory situation than might otherwise have been expected. I do not share the gloomy forebodings of hon. Members who say that as a result of the Bill the death rate from tuberculosis following the distribution of infected meat will go up. I do not share the gloominess that seems to afflict hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to that.
To deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), there will, of course, very likely be difficulties with slaughter-men after a period when—

Mr. Wigg: Mr. Wiggrose—

Dr. Hill: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I want to deal specifically with these points.
After a period when the number of slaughterhouses has been between 400 and 500 and we are now to see over 2,000 there are bound to be difficulties. It may be assumed, however, that those who have sought and obtained licences have satisfied themselves as to the availability of labour. At the same time there is a difficulty, and the position must be watched if to this trade there are to be attracted the new men to staff the increased number of slaughterhouses.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am sure that that he appreciates the importance of my question. It is whether the Ministry, in view of the fact that they are the repository of the experience of the last few years, would consider preparing a manual on slaughtering? There have been changes of technique and so on, and it would help the trade to meet what is, after all, a difficult problem.

Dr. Hill: I note the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. On his other point, as to what is happening to Government slaughterhouses, he asked particularly about the two where there are difficulties. We are actively considering the position, and it may be necessary for us to continue in action in those slaughterhouses for a few weeks until the difficulties have been resolved.
On the question of the amount to be charged in rent, that has to be related at the outset, as an experiment, to the throughput. In order that the rent may be fair in regard to the capital value as determined by the district valuer, of course there are discussions between the local authorities and the Government Departments concerned. But in general the position is satisfactory in terms of the number of slaughterhouses and in terms of what will be available as from the appointed day, the freedom day of 3rd July.
I have taken note of the other points which the hon. Gentleman has raised. I think that if we forget for a moment the mixture of pleasure, fear and hope that has been expressed, it may be said that the situation is likely, for all its difficulties, to be resolved satisfactorily. I


should like, on behalf of my right hon. and gallant Friend, to say to hon. Members opposite that we are genuinely appreciative of the help that they have given us in the Committee stage upstairs, and if we may forget the little breeze that took place earlier, in general there has been a co-operative effort to achieve a useful purpose.

Mr. Wigg: I was reassured by what the hon. Gentleman said about the practice which will be adopted by progressive authorities who desire to discharge their duties under the Bill. But what about the bad authorities? The Parliamentary Secretary well knows that in the past slink meat passed from the areas of bad authorities into the areas of the good authorities. What are his proposals to make the bad authorities do their job?

Dr. Hill: In the main, we rely on the local authorities with their sense of responsibility to administer food and drugs legislation. There are in addition the regulations already laid down under the Food and Drugs Act, and those which are likely to be laid down under any future legislation which specify national standards. But I must end as I began. Fundamentally, this work depends on the efficiency of the local authorities.

Question put.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is it in order for a Member of the Government party to seek to call a Division and then to go out of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

AGRICULTURE (FERTILISERS SCHEMES)

Draft Fertilisers (England, Wales and Scotland) Scheme, 1954 [copy presented. 1st June], approved.

Draft Fertilisers (Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1954 [copy presented, 1st June], approved.—[Mr. Nugent.]

ROAD SAFETY (TEMPERANCE POSTERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]

2.16 a.m.

Mr. James Hudson: I wish to raise with the Minister of Transport some further queries concerning the banning of posters referring to the danger of alcohol to safe motor driving. The matter follows a Question asked by me in the House on 5th May. One of the posters was displayed at New Street Station, Birmingham, where temperance posters have been shown for many years. After standing a few days, the poster was blacked out on the requirement of the Transport Commission.
The legend of this poster, which I have already shown the House, was:
One for the road may be one for the grave.
It shows a glass of liquor obscuring a man's face. Part of the face behind the glass appears as belonging to a skull. I express my own view, and a view which I think is widely held, that the poster is a startlingly effective comment on what a representative of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Road Accidents called the motorists' pernicious habit of having one last drink. The Royal Society published the poster.
Among a variety of changing reasons for banning the poster advanced by Mr. J. H. Brebner, the publicity officer of the Transport Commission, was that it was controversial, that it was a "knocking" poster, that it maligned the commodities extolled by other advertisements and that it had been
banned by the Birmingham Accident Prevention Council and other similar bodies as being too gruesome.
Actually, the poster is being widely displayed by accident prevention committees, even among Birmingham's neighbours, Staffordshire County Council and Rugby being only two examples. I saw it prominently displayed in Rugby only this last week-end.
The action of the Birmingham committee, which is supported largely by public funds for which the Ministry has some responsibility, cannot be ignored


when that action is offered as an excuse by Mr. Brebner of the Transport Commission for their banning the poster. I ask the Ministry of Transport, has it made any comment upon, or does it propose to offer any advice to, the Birmingham road safety committee? That body took action on the initiation of the representative of a large Birmingham brewery who said that the poster was an attack on his trade. If it was, then his trade was more than ever attacked by a new poster which the Transport Commission has now approved. I will show and read from that poster in a moment.
The chairman of the Birmingham road safety committee showed himself so biased in the brewers' favour that he told the "Birmingham Post" that the poster, "One for the grave," might give the impression that a drink was a horrible thing, which it was not, he said. The poster did not say anything about any one glass of beer. It said, "One for the road might be one for the grave," which the chairman himself ought to be saying anyhow. The chairman also said it was gruesome. He seems quite oblivious of the fact that if drink has caused any proportion of the 220,000 killed on the roads in the last 44 years that would be more horrible than any poster.
Mr. Brebner took his cue from the chairman and thought the poster gruesome. They should both be told that the British Medical Association recently reported that the influence of alcohol is responsible for thousands more road accidents than would appear from the official figures. Mr. Brebner's position has become quite untenable in view of subsequent action. The Birmingham Temperance Society on 30th March submitted for approval to the Transport authority a slogan, "Most important, remember that Alcohol blurs your judgment and slows your reactions." It would have been interpreted as an attack on the trade if submitted to the brewers, and an attack on any glass containing alcohol had the slogan been submitted to the chairman of the Birmingham road safety committee.
Actually, the slogan was part of a speech by the Minister of Transport in the House of Commons. It was broadcast by the B.B.C. uncensored by Mr. Brebner or anyone else. It was reprinted in an official leaflet issued to all

applicants for driving licences in 1953. But it was rejected as "controversial" by the Transport Commission on 7th April.
The next day two further quotations were submitted for appearance in poster forms; one was from a speech by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Sir G. Braithwaite), when Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry; the other by a former Chief Medical Officer of the Ministries of Health and Education. Both quotations were rejected by the Transport Authority as "controversial."
At last, a quotation submitted by the Birmingham Temperance Society from the Highway Code seems to have been accepted by the Transport Commission. It was rather long for a poster, though the matter was excellent for printing in the Highway Code. The poster reads:
The Highway Code states: Be sure you are fit to use the road. Alcohol even in small amounts lowers your alertness and sense of caution. A fraction of a second may make all the difference between safety and disaster. If you cannot give the necessary concentration, you are risking not only your own life but the lives of others.
And, as if all that were not enough, the Ministry or the Authority has insisted on the further addition:
Many drugs have the same effects, and so also has fatigue.
It will thus be seen that a magnificent effort to bring home to careless people the gruesome nature of death on the road and the part drink has in causing it as exhibited in the poster, "One for the grave," has ended in almost prolix and loquacious statements which ought to have been terse and arresting. That is not the fault of the Temperance Society but of the Transport Commission, who have put every difficulty in the Temperance Society's way in their reasonable work.
I roundly charge the Transport Commission with sabotage of the excellent work of the Minister and of the Royal Society and of the temperance bodies who, in bringing this issue of the danger of drink on the roads prominently before the public, have done a good piece of public work. That sabotage ought to stop, and the ban on the Royal Society's poster should be withdrawn at once.
One of the inferences of Mr. J. H. Brebner was that the ban was inspired by the British or London Advertisers'


Association. The secretary of both bodies writes to me to deny this. Thus, the responsibility for what has been condemned in many newspapers rests squarely on the shoulders of the Commission and the pusillanimous guidance that it has taken from the Birmingham accident council. That abbreviation of its title is about all that that body deserves, because it is an accident council rather than a road safety council.
If the banning of all posters on public property is to be persisted in, where is it all to end? Brebner stated to the "British Weekly" that any mention of drink or alcohol in any temperance poster was likely to be derogatory of the alcohol industry. The words of the Highway Code now printed are derogatory enough of that industry. Are they then to stand or not? We may be quite sure that if the ineffable Brebner is to be allowed further rein he may try his hand next at the controversial character of the newspaper posters on the stations.
What happy medium would he strike between the "Daily Worker" and the "Daily Telegraph"? What about allowing the "Tribune" and the "Spectator" and the books to "knock" one another on the station bookstalls? His Goebbels eye glances approvingly, it would seem, at the "Piccadilly Midnight Nudes," for there they are on the underground hoardings, with others, confounding the excellent rule re-stated by the "Manchester Guardian" that blasphemous, libellous and pornographic matter should be excluded from all posters.
Under this policy—or is it this pretence—that there can be no controversy on the station hoardings, the Society of Friends has had its peace posters turned down. Its poster, "The Password for Peace is Reconciliation," did not suit the Transport Commission, though it seems to have become the watchword for the Prime Minister in Washington. Anti-gambling posters have been forbidden. The Second Coining has been proclaimed on station hoardings although that might fairly raise a point of controversy in the minds of Jews or of agnostics.
In all this kind of trouble, before he is done the Minister may need a Senator McCarthy to settle the question of what is controversial and what is not. At any rate, he will not have to travel by sea or

air. He has already arrived—by British Railways. Let us bundle him out.

2.29 a.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: All of us will agree that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) is invariably true to his colours. I assure him that I am going home immediately after this debate is over and that I have not had any alcohol since midnight and, in any case, I shall not be driving myself. Nor am I conscious of having paid any particular attention to posters in Piccadilly. I saw the poster in New Street Station to which the hon. Member refers on a number of occasions when I visited my constituency. I must say I thought that it was an unfortunate one and that I was rather glad when it was withdrawn. Quite apart from anything else, it did not seem to me to be in good taste.
I certainly have no objection to temperance propaganda within reason, but it always seems to me that posters using phrases like, "One for the grave," bringing the idea of death as vividly as that before the public, are doubtful in taste. I feel the same sort of repugnance to this poster as I felt to a poster some years ago, which was commented on in this House, of a widow seeing her child killed as he crossed the road. It struck me that the poster was altogether too violent in tone really to serve the cause which the hon. Member had at heart.
I think that some of the earlier posters for which the Temperance Society has been responsible on New Street Station will do the cause of temperance more good than the poster to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I believe that the decision was the right one.

2.31 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) has raised the question of a decision which was taken by the British Transport Commission with regard to a certain poster. I begin by making it plain that the Ministry of Transport regard the Commission as being in precisely the same position as any other commercial undertaking, and it is free to follow what policy it likes with regard to


advertising. The Ministry of Transport does not claim to exercise any authority over it in what it does.
Therefore, in replying to the debate, I am not accepting any responsibility on behalf of my right hon. Friend for what has been done. It is entirely a matter which is left to the Commission. Having said so much by way of explanation of the autonomy in this matter of the Commission, let me now say that in my opinion the action of the Commission was entirely right.
First, it is important to realise exactly what the sequence of events has been. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which is subsidised by my Department, produced a poster to which objection was subsequently taken. Local organisations associated with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents have complete autonomy in these matters, and the Birmingham Accident Prevention Society refused to buy the poster on the ground that it was too gruesome. I am interested that my hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) who has actually seen the poster displayed—I have not—takes the view that, on the ground of taste and psychology of the public, the Birmingham Accident Prevention Society was wise in deciding not to buy or to display the poster.
As the hon. Member for Ealing, North, said, it is perfectly open to other associations and societies, or branches of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, if they like to do so, to buy the poster and to display it. It is equally open to the Birmingham Accident Prevention Society not to do so. It was at that point that the Birmingham Temperance Society stepped in, bought a number of these posters and displayed them at New Street Station.
The House should pause to consider exactly what this implies. The whole motive had now changed. The Birmingham Accident Prevention Society exists to reduce accidents and is interested in alcohol only in so far as it may be a contributory cause of accidents. The Birmingham Temperance Society exists to reduce the consumption of alcohol and is interested in road accidents only in so far as they serve to point the moral that alcohol, as the Society thinks,

is in itself a bad thing. That is obviously an important distinction which we have to take into account.
I have, it is true, a special responsibility in the matter of road safety, because I am chairman of the road safety committee. Had it been that a road safety committee or the Birmingham Accident Prevention Society had wished to display a poster and had been prevented from doing so, I should, naturally, have taken a certain interest in the matter. But it is not a matter in which I am in the slightest degree concerned if there is a difference of opinion between a temperance society and the Transport Commission. Even had it been the case that a branch of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents or one of our local accident prevention committees had desired to display this poster and had been prevented from doing so, I still should not have considered that any intervention on my part was justified.
There is a code of conduct which has been laid down for the advertising industry, and it has a number of rules as to what may and may not be displayed. One of its rules, which, I think, is a wise and proper rule, is that, generally speaking, it is willing to publish posters which advertise a particular product, but the industry is not willing to publish a poster which is "knocking" copy and which criticises some other product. It has made no objection, and the Transport Commission, acting on the general principles of the Joint Censorship Committee of Outdoor Associations, has made no difficulty, about publishing posters of the temperance societies which advocate temperance as such.
It is an entirely different matter when the temperance society wishes to publish posters which are critical of and hostile to the products of other organisations, whether commercial or anything else. The hon. Member has himself quoted the poster which is now being displayed with the full consent and approval of the Commission, and all that he has to say about it is that he considers that it is too long. There are a number of posters which the Commission has always been willing to publish which advocate temperance and various other ways in which it is possible for care to be taken to reduce accidents upon the roads.
I say in conclusion, recapitulating what I have said, that it is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport to intervene in a matter of this kind. Even if it were, I would still hold the view that a poster of that kind is open to grave objection. In the next place, the British Transport Commission has always shown itself willing to publish suitable posters in the interest of road safety, and I can see no ground for criticising the Commission, as the hon. Member for Ealing, North has done, for refusing to publish posters of this kind. Instead of concentrating upon the importance of temperance and safety on the roads, these posters chose to criticise even the moderate use of alcohol.

Mr. James Simmons: The Minister said that he was prepared to take action against "knocking" posters. Will he take action against the "knocking" posters of the brewers? On railway stations the brewers have posters declaring, "Beer is Best." Surely that is

knocking at temperance drinks; it is drawing a distinction which is invidious. It is carrying out the principle to which the Parliamentary Secretary objected where temperance posters were concerned. Why does he discriminate?
I get into a train at Euston. I have not gone far in the train before I see on railway property a poster which says, "You are One Mile Nearer Mitchells and Butler, the Brewers." I want to protest against discrimination against a strong body of opinion which believes in temperance principles. It is monstrous that nationalised undertakings should be used to bolster the brewing industry which has caused more misery, harm, and suffering to the community than any other industry in the country's history.

Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes to Three o'Clock a.m.